top of page


Methodological guidance on the analysis and interpretation of non-randomised studies to inform health economic evaluation

  • Investigate the extent to which the findings of randomised and non-randomised studies differ when conducted for the same clinical question and explore potential reasons for observed discrepancies, in particular choice of analytical method

  • Assess whether different analytical methods used in non-randomised studies are likely to produce valid and unbiased estimates of relative effectiveness (a key input to economic evaluations)

  • Provide findings as methodological recommendations that help HTA agencies, regulators and the wider research community and other interested stakeholders to analyse and interpret non-randomised data in economic evaluations 

  • Perform a large-scale meta-epidemiological review to obtain estimates of the discrepancy in treatment effects in randomised and non-randomised studies using various analytical methods

  • Develop empirically based recommendations that include input from international stakeholders gathered from a series of workshops

  • Pilot test recommendations using published NICE guidance

  • Deliverable D6.1: Meta-epidemiological comparison of effect sizes in matched studies [PDF]

  • Deliverable D6.2: Recommendations on how to analyse and interpret non-randomised studies [PDF]

  • Dataset: Effect estimates obtained from randomised and nonrandomised studies (available December 2022)

  • Kent S, Salcher-Konrad M, Boccia S, Bouvy JC, De Waure C, Espin J, Facey K, Nguyen M, Rejon-Parrilla JC, Jonsson P (2021). The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence


London School of Economics and Political Science

LSE Health

Research team

Pall Jonsson (PI)

Maximilian Salcher (PI)

Seamus Kent

bottom of page