To review the development of economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the goal of assisting those developing EEGs in LMICs.

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature until March 2021. We extracted data on the methods used in the EEG development process, the responsible party engaged, and the development team’s composition. We conducted a quality assessment, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems tool, and then carried out a relative comparison.

Fourteen EEGs and nine studies were identified. In ten countries, the Ministry of Health was responsible for handling the development process. The majority of LMICs who developed EEGs did not explicitly report the discipline of those involved in the process. The developers of EEGs followed four main steps: conducting a review on national guidelines, organizing workshops, and getting support from international experts or from organizations. One-third of the identified EEGs failed to engage multisectoral or multidisciplinary developers, and approximately 14 percent did not follow or report any recommended step.

This study identified a scarcity of published information related to the development process and the suboptimal quality of included studies. It provides relevant material to support international organizations and developers of guidelines in LMICs in developing EEGs that fit their national context. In addition, this paper recommends a transparent approach to the design of guidelines and to reporting on the methods for developing them.

To systematically identify the latest versions of official economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and explore similarities and differences in their content.

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.

Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost–utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.

As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.