Reproducibility Status of Economic Evaluations of Cancer Drugs: An Assessment of 150 Cost-Effectiveness Models

PURPOSE: Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) published in scientific journals have increased in recent years. The studies involve many discretionary judgements that, if not properly reported and justified, may reduce the credibility of cost-effectiveness evidence. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of published model-based CEAs and to explore associations between reproducibility and study characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for model-based CEAs of cancer drugs. Data were extracted on the journal type, impact factor, study design, model structure, and model inputs. Reproducibility was assessed based on access to model code (Computational Reproducibility) and whether reporting was transparent and sufficiently detailed across four criteria (model structure, transitions, costs, and health outcomes) for an external researcher to recreate the model (Recreate Reproducibility). Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between reproducibility and study characteristics. RESULTS: Among 266 eligible CEAs, 150 were randomly selected for full-text review, of which 2.7% (95% CI, 1.0 to 6.7) were assessed as Computationally Reproducible and 16.7% (95% CI, 11.6 to 23.4) as Recreate Reproducible. While most studies reported the overall model structure (85% [95% CI, 77 to 91]), only 39% (95% CI, 28 to 51) fully reported all cost inputs. Regression analyses showed no association between reproducibility and study characteristics such as funding source, country setting, or journal impact factor. CONCLUSION: Only a small fraction of oncology CEAs was assessed as reproducible, irrespective of journal or study characteristics. Critical information necessary for external review and reproducibility remains largely unavailable, even in high-impact oncology journals. Standardized reporting and open modeling practices are needed to strengthen the scientific reliability of cost-effectiveness evidence in oncology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2026-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op-26-00690
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reproducibility Status of Economic Evaluations of Cancer Drugs: An Assessment of 150 Cost-Effectiveness Models

Martin Henriksson, Jonathan Siverskog, Naimi Johansson, Mikael Svensson
JCO Oncology Practice
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

Reproducibility Status of Economic Evaluations of Cancer Drugs: An Assessment of 150 Cost-Effectiveness Models

Martin Henriksson, Jonathan Siverskog, Naimi Johansson, Mikael Svensson
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) published in scientific journals have increased in recent years. The studies involve many discretionary judgements that, if not properly reported and justified, may reduce the credibility of cost-effectiveness evidence. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of published model-based CEAs and to explore associations between reproducibility and study characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for model-based CEAs of cancer drugs. Data were extracted on the journal type, impact factor, study design, model structure, and model inputs. Reproducibility was assessed based on access to model code (Computational Reproducibility) and whether reporting was transparent and sufficiently detailed across four criteria (model structure, transitions, costs, and health outcomes) for an external researcher to recreate the model (Recreate Reproducibility). Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between reproducibility and study characteristics. RESULTS: Among 266 eligible CEAs, 150 were randomly selected for full-text review, of which 2.7% (95% CI, 1.0 to 6.7) were assessed as Computationally Reproducible and 16.7% (95% CI, 11.6 to 23.4) as Recreate Reproducible. While most studies reported the overall model structure (85% [95% CI, 77 to 91]), only 39% (95% CI, 28 to 51) fully reported all cost inputs. Regression analyses showed no association between reproducibility and study characteristics such as funding source, country setting, or journal impact factor. CONCLUSION: Only a small fraction of oncology CEAs was assessed as reproducible, irrespective of journal or study characteristics. Critical information necessary for external review and reproducibility remains largely unavailable, even in high-impact oncology journals. Standardized reporting and open modeling practices are needed to strengthen the scientific reliability of cost-effectiveness evidence in oncology.

JCO Oncology Practice
Linköping University (SE), Uppsala University (SE), Karolinska Institutet (SE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.