ECONOMIC EVALUATION STUDIES ON MEDICINES: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS COVERING A 44-YEAR PERIOD

Öz

Objective: Drug expenditures are a significant concern for policymakers worldwide. This concern makes it essential to conduct economic evaluations of drugs during the approval and listing of new medications. The aim of this research is to reveal global research productivity on the economic evaluation of drugs, based on articles published in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database, and to examine the relationships among study components.

Material and Method: The research was conducted by scanning the WoS database between May 5th and June 3rd, 2025. As a result of the screening conducted, 906 articles were found between 1981 and 2025. The analyses were performed using the Biblioshiny application and the VOSviewer version 1.6.20 program.

Result and Discussion: The number of studies related to the economic evaluation of drugs has increased rapidly since 1996. The most effective journal for the economic evaluation of drugs is "Pharmacoeconomics Journal." The most productive countries are the Netherlands and Canada. The research findings offer useful research avenues and insights for researchers and practitioners who will be working in the field of pharmacoeconomics, in other words, the economic evaluation of drugs, in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Health economics
• health management
• medicine
• pharmaceutical expenditure
• pharmacoeconomics

İLAÇLAR ÜZERİNE YAPILAN EKONOMİK DEĞERLENDİRME ÇALIŞMALARI: 44 YILLIK DÖNEM ÜZERİNDEN BİR BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Amaç: İlaç harcamaları, dünya çapındaki karar vericiler için önemli bir endişe kaynağıdır. Bu endişe durumu yeni ilaçların onaylanması ve listelenmesinde ilaçların ekonomik olarak değerlendirilmesini elzem kılmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Web of Science (WoS) veritabanındaki dergilerde yayımlanmış makaleler aracılığıyla ilaçların ekonomik değerlendirmesiyle ilgili küresel araştırma üretkenliğini ve çalışma bileşenleri arasındaki ilişkileri ortaya koymaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmada 05 Mayıs ile 03 Haziran 2025 tarihleri arasında WoS veritabanında tarama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan tarama sonucunda 1981-2025 yılları arasında 906 makale kaydına ulaşılmıştır. Analizler Biblioshiny uygulaması ve VOSviewer version 1.6.20 programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Sonuç ve Tartışma: İlaçların ekonomik değerlendirmesiyle ilgili çalışma sayısı 1996 yılından itibaren hızla artış göstermiştir. İlaçların ekonomik değerlendirmesi ile ilgili çekirdek ve en etkin dergi “Pharmacoeconomics Journal”dur. En üretken ülkeler Hollanda ve Kanada’dır. Yapılan tematik harita analizi sonucunda motor/ana temalar arasında hipertansiyon ve depresyon gibi hastalıkların yer aldığı belirlenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, ilaçların ekonomik değerlendirilmesi bir diğer ifadeyle farmakoekonomi alanında gelecekte çalışma yapacak araştırmacılar ve uygulayıcılar için yararlı araştırma yolları ve içgörüler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Farmakoekonomi
• ilaç
• ilaç harcamaları
• sağlık ekonomisi
• sağlık yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. 1. Wan, T., Zhong, J., Pan, Q., et al. (2022). Exosome-mediated delivery of Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes for tissue-specific gene therapy of liver diseases. Science Advances, 8(37), 1-13. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Alshayban, D.M. (2025). Predictors of knowledge level and awareness towards the principles and methodology evaluation of pharmacoeconomics in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 18(1), 2442496. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Tonin, F.S., Aznar-Lou, I., Pontinha, V.M., et al. (2021). Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis: The case of pharmacist-led interventions. Pharmacy Practice (Granada), 19(1), 1-10. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Sun, J., Luo, H. (2017). Evaluation on equality and efficiency of health resources allocation and health services utilization in China. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16(1), 1-8. [CrossRef]
5. 5. McIntosh, E., Luengo-Fernandez, R. (2006). Economic evaluation. Part 1: Introduction to the concepts of economic evaluation in health care. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 32(2), 107-112. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Yagudina, R.I., Kulikov, A.U., Serpik, V.G., et al. (2017). Concept of combining cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis in health care decision-making. Value in Health Regional Issues, 13, 61-66. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Eddama, O., Coast, J. (2008). A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy, 86(2-3), 129-141. [CrossRef]
8. 8. Alhussien, B.H., Altowijri, A., Alhussien, S.H. (2024). Awareness and knowledge of pharmacoeconomics among pharmacist and pharmacy students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Medicine in Developing Countries, 8(1), 253-253. [CrossRef]

9. 9. Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., et al. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 277-322. [CrossRef]
10. 10. Rao, L., Rai, N., Yadav, D., et al. (2022). Clinical trials for drugs: Pharmacoeconomics’s function and their emerging effective outcomes. Eds: Malviya, R., Srivastava, P.K., Verma, S., Srivastava, S. Pharma Marketing and Pharmacoeconomics Opportunities, Challenges, and the Way Forward, 1st ed., Apple Academic Press, New York, 215-238.
11. 11. Yoo, S.L., Kim, D.J., Lee, S.M., et al. (2019). Improving patient access to new drugs in South Korea: Evaluation of the national drug formulary system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 288. [CrossRef]
12. 12. T.C. Resmî Gazete. (2005). 2005 Mali Yılı Bütçe Uygulama Talimatı. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2005/02/20050209m1.htm. Erişim tarihi: 14.08.2025.
13. 13. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (SGK). (2007). Ödeme Komisyonunun Çalışma Usul ve Esasları Hakkında Yönerge. https://kms.kaysis.gov.tr/Home/Goster/24564. Erişim tarihi: 14.08.2025.
14. 14. Dangouloff, T., Botty, C., Beaudart, C., et al. (2021). Systematic literature review of the economic burden of spinal muscular atrophy and economic evaluations of treatments. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 16(1), 47. [CrossRef]
15. 15. Web of Science (WOS). (2025). Results from Web of Science Core Collection. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/1a4bd516-1566-4cf9-9191-f5cdb7be335c-016633711f/relevance/1. Erişim tarihi: 05.05.2025.
16. 16. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., et al. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. [CrossRef]
17. 17. Merediz-Solà, I., Bariviera, A.F. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Research in International Business and Finance, 50, 294-305. [CrossRef]
18. 18. Bashir, M.F., Ma, B., Bilal, F., et al. (2021). Analysis of environmental taxes publications: A bibliometric and systematic literature review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 20700-20716. [CrossRef]
19. 19. Vošner, H.B., Kokol, P., Bobek, S., et al. (2016). A bibliometric retrospective of the Journal Computers in Human Behavior (1991-2015). Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 46-58. [CrossRef]
20. 20. Spasojevic, I., Havzi, S., Stefanovic, D., et al. (2021). Research trends and topics in IJIEM from 2010 to 2020: A statistical history. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 12(4), 228-242. [CrossRef]
21. 21. Bibliometrix. (2025). Bibliometrix. https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php/layout/biblioshiny. Erişim tarihi: 12.08.2025.
22. 22. Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. [CrossRef]
23. 23. Eck, N.J.V., Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635-1651. [CrossRef]
24. 24. Van Eck, N., Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. [CrossRef]
25. 25. Zupic, I., Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. [CrossRef]
26. 26. Merigó, J., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., et al. (2016). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research. 1st International Conference on Advanced Research Methods in Analytics (CARMA 2016), Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València, 148. [CrossRef]
27. 27. Carvalho, M.M., Fleury, A., Lopes, A.P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1418-1437. [CrossRef]
28. 28. Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M., Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 194-220. [CrossRef]
29. 29. Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., et al. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967-972. [CrossRef]
30. 30. Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford law and related statistical patterns. Current Contents, (19), 5-12.
31. 31. Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., et al. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. [CrossRef]
32. 32. Ham, C. (1997). Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy, 42(1), 49-66. [CrossRef]
33. 33. Duckett, S.J. (2004). Drug policy down under: Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Health Care Financing Review, 25(3), 55-67.
34. 34. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. https://www.nice.org.uk. Erişim tarihi: 15.07.2025.
35. 35. Garfield, E. (2004). Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. Journal of Information Science, 30(2), 119-145. [CrossRef]
36. 36. Foster, R.H., Goa, K.L. (1998). Risperidone: A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics, 14(1), 97-133. [CrossRef]
37. 37. Yong, J.H., Beca, J., Hoch, J.S. (2013). The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics, 31(3), 229-236. [CrossRef]
38. 38. Appio, F.P., Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: A document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 623-661. [CrossRef]
39. 39. Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., Verhoef, P.C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171-193. [CrossRef]
40. 40. Schaber, S.D., Gerogiorgis, D.I., Ramachandran, R., et al. (2011). Economic analysis of integrated continuous and batch pharmaceutical manufacturing: A case study. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50(17), 10083-10092. [CrossRef]
41. 41. Bryant‐Comstock, L., Stender, M., Devercelli, G. (2002). Health care utilization and costs among privately insured patients with bipolar I disorder. Bipolar Disorders, 4(6), 398-405. [CrossRef]
42. 42. Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J., Buxton, M.J. (2010). Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Medical Decision Making, 30(4), 14-27. [CrossRef]
43. 43. Burton, B., Kumar, S., Pandey, N. (2020). Twenty-five years of The European Journal of Finance (EJF): A retrospective analysis. The European Journal of Finance, 26(18), 1817-1841. [CrossRef]
44. 44. Emich, K.J., Kumar, S., Lu, L., et al. (2020). Mapping 50 years of small group research through small group research. Small Group Research, 51(6), 659-699. [CrossRef]
45. 45. Cisneros, L., Ibanescu, M., Keen, C., et al. (2018). Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: Mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics, 117(2), 919-951. [CrossRef]
46. 46. Hatswell, A.J., Freemantle, N., Baio, G., et al. (2017). Economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals granted a marketing authorisation without the results of randomised trials: A systematic review and taxonomy. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(2), 163-176. [CrossRef]
47. 47. Buxton, M.J., Drummond, M.F., Van Hout, B.A., et al. (1997). Modelling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life. Health Economics, 6(3), 217-227. [CrossRef]
48. 48. Agustí, A., Cereza, G., de Abajo, F.J., et al. (2023). Clinical pharmacology facing the real-world setting: Pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and the economic evaluation of drugs. Pharmacological Research, 197, 106967. [CrossRef]
49. 49. Epstein, D., Espín, J. (2020). Evaluation of new medicines in Spain and comparison with other European countries. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34(2), 133-140. [CrossRef]
50. 50. Bodrogi, J., Kaló, Z. (2010). Principles of pharmacoeconomics and their impact on strategic imperatives of pharmaceutical research and development. Br J Pharmacol. 159(7),1367-73. [CrossRef]
51. 51. Araştırmacı İlaç Firmaları Derneği (AİFD). (2025). Türkiye İlaç Sektörü Raporu 2025. https://www.aifd.org.tr. Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2025.
52. 52. Liu, Y., Bo, Z., Liu, D., et al. (2022). Trends and frontiers of research on pharmacoeconomics from 2012-2021: A scientometric analysis. Annals of Translational Medicine, 10(6), 327. [CrossRef]
53. 53. Scheijmans, F.E.V., van der Wal, R., Zomers, M.L., et al. (2025). Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 20(1), e0317188. [CrossRef]
54. 54. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (SGK). (2023). OECD ve AB Ülkelerinde Sağlık ve Geri Ödeme Sistemleri III, Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara.
55. 55. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). (2025). Global Burden of Disease Compare. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/. Erişim tarihi: 26.12.2025.
56. 56. IQVIA. (2025). Global Oncology Trends 2025 Report. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-publications/reports/global-oncology-trends-2025. Erişim tarihi: 26.12.2025.