OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of cost-effectiveness studies conducted on the Indian population.

METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar was performed to identify the cost-effectiveness studies conducted on the Indian population since inception to July 2022. We have included all cost-effectiveness analyses which had quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome measures. Two reviewers independently extracted the data using a self-developed item data collection form. The quality of studies was evaluated using consensus on health economic criteria (CHEC) and quality of health economic studies (QHES) checklists. The collected data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS: A total of 48 studies were included. Approximately 85% of the studies were model-based, of which the Markov model was frequently reported. Most study interventions were categorized as therapeutic (45.8%), and some studies (35.4%) considered an active alternative as the comparator. The effectiveness of the data was derived from a single study in 19 (39.6%) reports, and only a few (15, 31.2%) used evidence synthesis-based estimates. Most of the studies (34, 70.8%) reported that the study intervention produced "most costs and more QALYs" than the comparator. Most articles were of moderate quality when assessed using the CHEC (68.7%) and QHES (45.8%) checklists. According to CHEC, most studies did not mention the costs of physical units (39, 81.3%) and were not valued appropriately (27, 56.3%).

CONCLUSIONS: Several crucial components of techniques and outcomes were commonly lacking in published cost-effectiveness analyses from India. It is hard to ascertain the validity of research findings and conclusions without a complete and comprehensive description of how studies were organized and executed.