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

  • A peer-reviewed publication with the results of a meta-epidemiological study comparing effect sizes in randomised and non-randomised studies

  • A set of empirically based recommendations on the analysis and interpretation of non-randomised studies and their analytical methods for economic evaluations

Research Update

January 2019 – IMPACT HTA 2nd Project Meeting (Presentation PDF)


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence


London School of Economics and Political Science

Principal Investigators

Pall Jonsson

Maximilian Salcher

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 779312