{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016296296296296295, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.168949771689498, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does meta-analysis of economic evaluations have the potential to play a role in healthcare decision-making in the United States?

Abstract The current use of economic evidence in the decision-making process in the US is increasing. Meta-analysis of economic evaluations (MAEE) has gained recognition in recent years and can support decision-making at the global level or for countries with resource constraints. The focus of this article is to demonstrate how MAEE may contribute to the decision-making process in the US healthcare system. We demonstrated that MAEE can provide an efficient mechanism to quantitatively summarize cost-effectiveness findings based on all existing studies from the US answering the same question across different assumptions. This sort of evidence is important for US policymakers to support policy decision-making. MAEE methods can streamline the process of reviewing complex economic models and their findings, which has been previously reported by stakeholders as a barrier to the use of economic evidence in decision-making in the US. However, the currently proposed method may not fully address the issue of heterogeneity observed among MAEEs. There is a critical need to explore sources of heterogeneity and develop a standardized approach to handle it to improve the efficiency and acceptability of future MAEEs.