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, consistency with 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》上的文章《国家卫生经济评价指南中贴现的系统评价：卫生保健价值影响》的同行评审补充材料。PRISMA 2020 检查清单目标：本次评价总结了当前经济评价（EE）指南中推荐的卫生保健项目和干预措施的贴现方法。材料与方法：对截至2022年7月发布的卫生保健EE指南进行了系统评价。结果：共审查了52项EE指南。其中，绝大多数指南（80.8%）推荐采用统一贴现而非差异贴现（9.6%）。统一贴现的合理性包括政府推荐、与其他国家的一致性以及经济发展。然而，差异贴现的合理性则基于对短期政府债券的兴趣以及预期预算变化。讨论：本评价揭示了EE指南中贴现方法和利率的多样性，并强调了在贴现方法上达成全球共识的必要性。