|
Lack of relevant data
|
|
1
|
Lack of high-quality local clinical data, where such data are critical to the decision
|
80
|
21%
|
|
3
|
Insufficient data to conduct study from chosen perspective
|
57
|
9%
|
|
5
|
Absence of locally relevant health state preference data suitable for estimating QALYs or DALYs
|
43
|
7%
|
|
Lack of commonly accepted standard or methods
|
|
2
|
Poor reporting
|
67
|
21%
|
|
4
|
A lack of commonly accepted standards for economic evaluation that is relevant to the LMIC for which the analysis is undertaken
|
57
|
19%
|
|
Inappropriate use of methods
|
|
6
|
Inappropriate choice of comparator(s)
|
29
|
7%
|
|
7
|
No budget constraints or thresholds considered
|
26
|
5%
|
|
8
|
Generalisability not discussed
|
14
|
3%
|
|
10
|
Equity and/or gender implications not considered
|
12
|
0%
|
|
11
|
No incremental analysis
|
11
|
1%
|
|
12
|
No, or inappropriate, sensitivity analysis
|
10
|
0%
|
|
13
|
All impacts implied by the chosen perspective not investigated
|
10
|
3%
|
|
15
|
Time horizon too short to capture relevant costs and health effects
|
9
|
1%
|
|
Inappropriate use of data
|
|
9
|
Clinical data not based on systematic review or primary clinical data not compared with similar studies done elsewhere
|
12
|
1%
|
|
14
|
Uncritical use of charges for cost data
|
9
|
1%
|
