OBJECTIVES: The information needs of cost-effectiveness models are difficult to address using search methods that have been developed for systematic literature reviews (SLRs) of clinical effectiveness that are designed to address a single research question. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of different search methods for utility inputs for cost-effectiveness models through a case study in ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS: This analysis included a comparison of systematic review search methods with two alternative search methods; iterative searching and rapid review. The identified utility values were tested in an executable cost-effectiveness model developed for UC, and differences in efficiency of searching and identified inputs were compared between the search methods. Data identified were included in the cost-effectiveness model, and model results were compared.

RESULTS: The SLR method identified the most publications for consideration to be used in the model (28 versus 19 and 11 from iterative searching and rapid review, respectively). The number of publications actually used in the model was similar across the search methods. The SLR was also found to be the least precise search method, with precision of 5.92% compared to 23.17% and 8.53% for iterative and rapid review methods, respectively. The time required to develop the search strategy, run searches and review the publications, was considerably longer for the SLR than for the two alternatives; 1440 minutes versus 380 and 440 minutes for iterative and rapid review, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the model results between the data identified through the different search methods.

CONCLUSIONS: While the SLR method identified the most publications, the alternative search methods were more efficient (more precise and took less time), without changing the economic conclusions generated from the cost-effectiveness model.