|
Technical issues
|
|
Poor reporting
|
9
|
|
Perspective not stated
|
7
|
|
Methodology not presented in a clear and reproducible manner
|
2
|
|
Disaggregated result not presented
|
1
|
|
Funding sources not reported
|
1
|
|
Ethical issues not discussed
|
1
|
|
Lack of high-quality local clinical data
|
7
|
|
Lack of local utility data
|
4
|
|
Sensitivity analysis not properly characterised
|
4
|
|
Some relevant cost data omitted
|
3
|
|
Incremental analysis not performed
|
3
|
|
Clinical data not based on systematic review
|
2
|
|
Lack of reliable cost data
|
2
|
|
Discounting not performed, if relevant
|
2
|
|
Methodology lacks standard, transparent methods
|
2
|
|
Comparator not appropriate
|
1
|
|
Variations among costs, effects and cost-effectiveness data within and between settings
|
1
|
|
No objective budget constraints or threshold applied
|
1
|
|
No reference case specific to developing contexts
|
1
|
|
Economic evaluation is not included in a formal process to support decision-making process
|
1
|
|
Limited local research capacity
|
1
|
|
Limited local good quality journal with a high standard process of review
|
1
|
|
Misunderstanding between researchers, academia and policy-makers
|
1
|
