Payer Evidence Review
Pubrica conducts systematic reviews and indirect treatment comparisons for market access teams preparing HTA submissions, JCA dossiers and economic models. A systematic review written for a submission is audited rather than read, and HTA bodies may try to reproduce the search. Pubrica’s evidence synthesis specialists and health economists deliver a review that an assessor can rerun, a feasibility assessment, and indirect comparisons where your trial has no arm for the requested comparator.
- Searches an assessor can rerun: full strategies for each database, dated, with the number of records returned
- PRISMA 2020 reporting, including the studies excluded at full text and the reasons, which reviewers check closely
- Indirect comparisons where no head-to-head exists, anchored or unanchored, with the assumptions stated and tested
- Feasibility assessed before the comparison is built, because some comparisons cannot be made reliably, and reporting this is itself a finding
- Designed for reuse: the same review supports a JCA dossier, national dossiers and the economic model without being rebuilt
Reproducible search per databaseIncluded
PRISMA 2020 reportingIncluded
Feasibility assessmentIncluded
Indirect comparison where feasibleIncluded
A comparison the data cannot supportNot performed; reasons reported
Question → search → screened → feasibility → comparison
- Searches recorded so they can be rerun
- PRISMA 2020 throughout
- Exclusions reasoned at full text
- Feasibility assessed before comparison
- Assumptions stated and tested
Deliverables
Four Components of Every Payer Evidence Review
A payer evidence review is judged on reproducibility: another team running the same search should find the same studies.
From the methodsHTA bodies do rerun searches. A strategy summarised in a sentence rather than given in full leads a reviewer to question the rest of the review.
From the PRISMA flowReviewers check this part closely, because a study excluded for an invalid reason could have changed the result.
From the feasibility assessmentSometimes the comparison cannot be made. Reporting that finding is more useful than a comparison built on incomparable populations, which an assessor will identify and discount.
From the analysisAn unanchored comparison assumes that all prognostic variables and effect modifiers have been accounted for. This assumption is strong and rarely fully met, and stating it clearly is necessary for the comparison to be usable.
The samples shown are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Payer Evidence Review Reporting and Methods Standards
Reporting standards for the systematic review and methods guidance for the indirect comparison.
PRISMA 2020 (systematic review reporting)
The reporting standard an HTA body expects a submission’s systematic review to meet, including the flow of records, the search reproducibility and the handling of studies excluded at full text.
NICE DSU technical support (synthesis and survival)
The technical support documents on network meta-analysis and on survival extrapolation for economic evaluation — the methods a UK reviewer will apply, and a reasonable default elsewhere.
ISPOR–SMDM good practices (modelling)
The seven-report series on model conceptualisation, state-transition and discrete event structures, parameter estimation, and the validation and transparency expectations that decide whether an HTA committee trusts a model it did not build.
Quality management (cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N)
Our certified quality system governs how work is run, recorded and released.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use in Payer Evidence Reviews
HTA reviewers examine every part of a submission, so each structural assumption, input and source must be attributable. NICE has published a position on AI use in submissions, and traceability, rather than speed, governs how we use AI tools.
Why We Do Not Publish AI Accuracy Figures
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote its own accuracy figures, as they would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Methodology
How Our Payer Evidence Review Process Works
The review question is set by the submission it serves, so we start with the target agency or the JCA scope.
Question and Protocol
We define the PICO against the submission it serves and write and register the protocol where appropriate, so that the methods are fixed before results are seen.
Search and Screening
We search databases, registries and conference proceedings with recorded strategies, screen in duplicate and record reasons for full-text exclusions.
Data Extraction and Assessment
We extract data to a defined form, assess risk of bias with the appropriate tool and map the evidence network.
Feasibility and Comparison
We report feasibility and then build the indirect comparison where it is supported, stating the assumptions and testing sensitivity to them.
Our Experts
Your Payer Evidence Review Team
A named team of subject specialists stays with your project from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Determines what the work can claim on the basis of the evidence. The subject expert is matched to your topic and tells you clearly when the evidence does not support the intended conclusion.
Responsible for every decision that depends on the numbers. Confirms before analysis begins whether the data can answer the question, and hands over the code so the analysis can be re-run independently.
Identifies the evidence on which the work is based and documents the search so that it can be reproduced. Writes the search strategy line by line for each platform and delivers it dated and reproducible.
Reviews the work independently of the first pass and reconciles the two, because most errors in this work are transcription errors rather than errors of reasoning. All disagreements are logged and adjudicated.
Packages
Payer Evidence Review Packages
Pricing depends on the breadth of the question and the number of records the search returns.
Systematic review
For the evidence base of a submission
Quoted per projectOn question breadth and volume
Delivery By scope
- ✓Protocol written and registered
- ✓Searches recorded per database
- ✓Duplicate screening
- ✓Full-text exclusions reasoned
- ✓Risk of bias assessed
- ✓PRISMA 2020 reporting
Please tell us which submission the review will support. A review built for a journal rarely meets an assessor’s requirements without rework.
Deliverables Request a quoteIndirect treatment comparison
For comparisons with no head-to-head trial
Quoted per projectOn network size and adjustment needed
Delivery By scope
- ✓Feasibility assessed and reported
- ✓Network mapped and connectivity tested
- ✓Anchored or unanchored as the data allows
- ✓Population adjustment where required
- ✓Assumptions stated and tested
- ✓Results in the form the submission needs
Where a comparison cannot be made reliably, we report this and explain why. This is a valid result of the assessment.
Deliverables Request a quoteLiving update
For reviews that must stay current
Quoted per projectOn update frequency
Delivery Scheduled
- ✓Searches rerun on schedule
- ✓New studies screened and added
- ✓Network and comparison refreshed
- ✓Changes to conclusions flagged
- ✓Version history maintained
Suitable where a JCA or national submission is still ahead and new evidence continues to be published.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend us your PICO and we will assess the feasibility of the comparison at no cost and tell you whether the evidence network supports it.
FAQs
Payer Evidence Review FAQs
If your question is not answered here, please ask an expert. No quote is required.
The methods are the same, but the reporting requirements are greater. An HTA body may rerun your search, check your full-text exclusions and test whether the evidence network is connected.
A review written for publication is often not reported in enough detail for this, which is why submissions frequently require it to be rebuilt.
When there is no common comparator and no other option, with population adjustment applied and the assumption stated: that all prognostic variables and effect modifiers have been accounted for.
It is a strong assumption that assessors recognise, and an unanchored comparison presented without acknowledging it is treated with more scepticism.
Yes. This is the purpose of the feasibility assessment, which establishes whether the network connects, whether the populations are comparable and whether outcomes are defined consistently enough to pool.
It costs far less than discovering the answer at the end of the project, and where a comparison is not feasible it allows you to change what you submit.
Yes, it should be designed for both. The JCA scope usually includes multiple PICOs, and a review built to cover them also serves the national submissions that follow.
Building a separate review for each submission costs more and produces versions that disagree with each other, which assessors will notice.
Related Services
Related Market Access Services
The payer evidence review is the evidence base for most other market access services.
1DOCUMENTS THAT USE ITdownstream
EU Joint Clinical AssessmentAnswering every consolidated PICO. HTA submission dossierOne dossier per agency.2RELATED ANALYSISin parallel
Cost-effectiveness modelThe source of the effect sizes. BiostatisticsSurvival analysis and synthesis.3OTHER REVIEW SERVICESrelated
Systematic reviewSystematic reviews for publication. Meta-analysisPooled effects where trials are comparable.Request a Free Indirect Treatment Comparison Feasibility Assessment
You will receive a clear answer on whether the network connects and the populations are comparable before the budget is committed.