Skip to main content

What you get

A structured evidence pack spanning four literatures that rarely sit together: clinical efficacy, burden of illness, economic evaluation, and real-world outcomes — each section cited, with the gaps named.

Who it’s for

HEOR and market access teams building reimbursement submissions, and the consultancies who build them on their behalf.

Why this one is awkward

Payer dossiers span clinical and economic literature that use different vocabularies, sit in different journals, and are indexed under different fields. A single query returns one of them and misses the rest. The fix is running four deliberately separate searches and keeping them separate in the output.

The four searches

Add country when the submission is to a specific national payer — cost-effectiveness evidence is jurisdiction-dependent, and a US cost-per-QALY carries little weight with a European HTA body.

The prompt

Audit requirements

Follow the grounding rules. Log the four search sets separately with their counts. If a section returned little — economic evaluations are frequently sparse for newer products — that sparsity is a finding a payer will also notice, so report it rather than padding.

What to check before you trust it

A literature pack is an input to a submission, not a submission. HTA requirements are jurisdiction-specific and prescriptive; the dossier’s structure and evidence standards come from the payer’s own guidance, not from this workflow.
  • Check jurisdiction on every economic study. Cost-effectiveness does not transfer across health systems, and a reviewer will spot a mismatched threshold immediately.
  • Check currency and year. Costs from a decade ago in another currency need conversion and inflation adjustment before they mean anything.
  • Read the gap section first. Where the evidence is thin is exactly where the payer will push, so it is the most useful output.
  • Real-world and trial evidence disagreeing is normal. Explain the gap rather than presenting only the flattering one.

Monitor new research about a drug, device, or brand

Keep watching the evidence base after submission.

Grade a set of papers with your own evidence rubric

Score the evidence you assemble consistently.

Best practices

Fan-out and merge, and the rest of the primitives.

All use cases

Browse the gallery by persona.