Supplementary materials: A systematic review of discounting in national health economic evaluation guidelines: healthcare value implications

<b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article '</b><b>A systematic review of discounting in </b><b>national health economic evaluation </b><b>guidelines: healthcare value implications</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><b>PRISMA 2020 Checklist</b><b>Aim:</b> This review summarizes the discounting approaches recommended in current economic evaluation (EE) guidelines for healthcare programs and interventions. <b>Materials &amp; methods:</b> A systematic review of EE guidelines for healthcare, published up to July 2022, was conducted. <b>Results:</b> A total of 52 EE guidelines were reviewed. The majority of these guidelines recommend equal discounting (80.8%) rather than differential discounting (9.6%). The rationale for equal discounting includes recommendations by the government, consistency with other countries, and economic development. However, the rationale for differential discounting is based on the interest in short-term government bonds and anticipated budget changes. <b>Discussion:</b> This review demonstrates variation in both discounting approaches and rates across EE guidelines and underscores the need for a global consensus on discounting approaches.

本资料为已通过同行评议的补充材料，对应发表于《Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research》的论文《国家卫生经济评价指南中的贴现研究系统综述：医疗健康价值意蕴》。PRISMA 2020 检查表（PRISMA 2020 Checklist）
研究目的：本综述旨在梳理当前医疗健康项目与干预措施的经济评价（Economic Evaluation，EE）指南所推荐的贴现方法。
材料与方法：本研究对截至2022年7月发表的各类医疗健康经济评价指南开展了系统综述。
研究结果：本次综述共纳入52份经济评价指南。其中绝大多数指南推荐统一贴现法（占比80.8%），仅9.6%的指南推荐差异贴现法。统一贴现法的依据涵盖政府部门的相关规定、与国际指南的一致性以及经济发展水平；而差异贴现法的依据则基于短期国债收益率预期与预算变动预判。
研究讨论：本综述显示，不同地区的经济评价指南在贴现方法与贴现率设定上均存在差异，凸显了全球范围内就贴现方法达成统一共识的必要性。