--- title: "Methods and Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Modern Radiotherapy: Systematic Mapping Review Pro" id: "bmj-open-8-methods-and-evidence-in-economic-evaluations-of-modern-radiotherapy-a" canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-8-methods-and-evidence-in-economic-evaluations-of-modern-radiotherapy-a" content_type: "clinical_feed_article" specialty: "Radiology" source_name: "BMJ Open" source_url: "http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/9/e119043?rss=1" published_at: "2026-09-22T17:11:09.000Z" evidence_level: "Journal Feed" license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use" --- # Methods and Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Modern Radiotherapy: Systematic Mapping Review Pro ## Provenance & Clinical Metadata - **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-8-methods-and-evidence-in-economic-evaluations-of-modern-radiotherapy-a - **Specialty:** [Radiology](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/radiology.md) - **Primary Source:** BMJ Open - **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/9/e119043?rss=1) - **Published At:** 2026-09-22T17:11:09.000Z - **Evidence Rating:** Journal Feed ## Executive GIST (TL;DR) - The protocol outlines a systematic mapping review to characterise peer-reviewed **economic evaluations** of **modern radiotherapy** published from 2005 onward. - The review intends to catalogue study designs, costing methods, analytic perspectives, model structures and utility measurement approaches used across the literature. - It will identify methodological trends, including uptake of **value of information** analysis, and highlight evidence gaps by tumour type, region and methodological approach. - Searches were conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and EconLit with an initial search on 24 February 2026 and a planned update before synthesis. - Reporting and methodological quality will be appraised across three dimensions using **CHEERS 2022** for reporting completeness, **ECOBIAS** for bias in economic evaluation, and the **TRUST** framework for transparent uncertainty assessment; these tools will be applied descriptively and not combined into a single score. - Extraction will capture model structure (eg, Markov), perspective (eg, healthcare payer), time horizon, costing approach (eg, DRG-based), utility instruments (eg, EQ-5D) and methods to assess uncertainty. - The ECOBIAS and TRUST tools will be applied only to decision-analytic model–based evaluations. - Results will be synthesised as an evidence gap map and visualised with heat maps, bubble plots and a conceptual co-occurrence network analysed in R and visualised with VOSviewer. - No meta-analysis is planned due to expected heterogeneity. - The review uses previously published data and does not require ethical approval; dissemination will include peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and open-access release of extraction files and visual maps via the Open Science Framework. - The protocol was prospectively registered in OSF Registries (registration date reported as 9 February 2026 with DOI provided in the source). ## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points Introduction Modern radiotherapy modalities have increased treatment precision and clinical effectiveness. However, the economic evidence that underpins their adoption is highly heterogeneous, with substantial variation in costing methods, data sources, analytic designs (trial-based, real-world/observational and decision-analytic modelling), perspectives and the treatment of uncertainty. We propose a systematic mapping review to characterise the peer-reviewed evidence base and identify methodological gaps relevant to health technology assessment and policy-making. This systematic mapping review aims to: (1) systematically catalogue the published, peer-reviewed evidence and the methodological approaches used in economic evaluations of modern radiotherapy; (2) identify methodological trends, including the uptake and implementation of value of information analysis and (3) highlight evidence gaps by tumour type, geographical region and methodological approach. Methods and analysis Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and EconLit for economic evaluations of radiotherapy published from 2005 onwards, with an initial search on 24 February 2026 and a planned search update before synthesis. Study selection is ongoing; extraction and quality appraisal in duplicate have not been undertaken and no results are reported. Reporting completeness, methodological limitations and uncertainty will be appraised as three separate dimensions using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist, the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) checklist and the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) framework, applied descriptively and not combined into a single quality score. Methodological information will be extracted, including model structure (eg, Markov model), analytical perspective (eg, healthcare payer), time horizon, costing approach (eg, diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based) and utility measurement (eg, EQ-5D). The methods used to assess uncertainty will be mapped for all studies, with the ECOBIAS checklist and the TRUST framework only applied to decision-analytic model-based evaluations. Findings will be synthesised descriptively as an evidence gap map and visualised as heat maps and bubble plots. A conceptual co-occurrence network, analysed in R with visualisation in VOSviewer, will map how modalities, tumour sites and economic characteristics cluster across studies. No meta-analysis is planned, given the expected heterogeneity of our findings. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval, as it will use data from previously published studies. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and open-access releases of data extraction files and visual maps in the Open Science Framework (OSF). Registration This review protocol was prospectively registered (9 February 2026) in the OSF Registries (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6W2TJ). ## Related Clinical Research - [Improved articular representation of the TLEM 2.0 musculoskeletal model via joint congruence maxim](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-8-update-of-the-articular-representation-of-the-tlem-2-0-musculoskeletal-model.md) - [Benchmarking Open-Source Thigh Muscle MRI Segmentation Algorithms](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-15-benchmarking-open-source-automated-thigh-muscle-mri-segmentation-algorithms.md) - [Accelerated Whole-Body DWI with Deep Learning Reconstruction in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Image](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-11-evaluation-of-accelerated-whole-body-diffusion-weighted-imaging-with-deep.md) - [T2 relaxometry validation of myelin water fraction using TSE and GRASE in ex vivo human brains](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/biorxiv-19-t2-relaxometry-for-myelin-water-fraction-an-ex-vivo-brain-imaging-study.md) - [Effects of Retrospective Lipid Suppression on Metabolite Quantification in Preclinical Proton MRSI](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/biorxiv-5-impacts-of-retrospective-lipid-suppression-on-metabolite-quantification-in.md) ## Navigation - [← Back to Radiology Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/radiology.md) - [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md) ## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer > [!CAUTION] > MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. > Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.