Within pharmacoeconomic analysis, the generalizability of results from one jurisdiction to another should not be presumed. In general re-analysis of data for specific jurisdictions is required. Thus, the lack of transparency in the reporting of evaluations can limit their applicability to decision making. OBJECTIVES: First, to build a decision analytic model to replicate the results from a stochastic analysis of a US trial based economic analysis. Second, to assess the transferability and generalizability of results to the Canadian setting. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed to replicate results from the US trial comparing the use of basiliximab and cyclosporin to placebo and cyclosporin for renal transplant patients. We determined the necessary parameters required to replicate the study results and conducted re-analysis for the Canadian setting. Data required related to clinical probabilities, costs of treatments and treatment paths. RESULTS: Results from the US study were replicated using the decision analytic model. The cyclosporin-basiliximab arm led to the least cost path when compared to cyclosporin-placebo, with costs of $28 858 and $32 253 respectively, approximating the results of the stochastic analysis of $28 927 and $32 300. Further analysis was conducted for the Canadian setting, and found similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Where the criteria for geographic transferability are satisfied it is possible to transfer the results of a clinical trial to other geographic locations. However, it need not follow that results are generalizable. In addition, when assessing the generalizability of results from the published literature, problems arise where data are incomplete. Thus, more transparent reporting of study results are required to aid transferability