Supplementary materials: A systematic review of discounting in national health economic evaluation guidelines: healthcare value implications

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'A systematic review of discounting in national health economic evaluation guidelines: healthcare value implications' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.PRISMA 2020 ChecklistAim: This review summarizes the discounting approaches recommended in current economic evaluation (EE) guidelines for healthcare programs and interventions. Materials & methods: A systematic review of EE guidelines for healthcare, published up to July 2022, was conducted. Results: A total of 52 EE guidelines were reviewed. The majority of these guidelines recommend equal discounting (80.8%) rather than differential discounting (9.6%). The rationale for equal discounting includes recommendations by the government, consistencywith other countries, and economic development. However, the rationale for differential discounting is based on the interest in short-term government bonds and anticipated budget changes. Discussion: This review demonstrates variation in both discounting approaches and rates across EE guidelines and underscores the need for a global consensus on discounting approaches.

本数据集为发表于《比较效果研究杂志》的论文《国家卫生经济评估指南中折现的系统综述：医疗保健价值影响》的同行评审补充材料。PRISMA 2020 检查清单目标：本综述旨在总结当前经济评估（EE）指南中推荐用于医疗保健项目和干预措施的折现方法。材料与方法：对截至 2022 年 7 月发布的卫生经济评估指南进行了系统综述。结果：共审查了 52 项经济评估指南。其中，大多数指南（80.8%）推荐采用统一折现，而非差异折现（9.6%）。统一折现的合理性包括政府的建议、与其他国家的连贯性以及经济发展。然而，差异折现的合理性则基于对短期政府债券的兴趣以及预期的预算变化。讨论：本综述表明，在经济评估指南中，折现方法和折现率的差异显著，并强调了在全球范围内就折现方法达成共识的必要性。