Abstract

Economic evaluations have a widespread application in many areas of clinical research and play a key role in the clinical decision-making process. However, economic analyses have been sometimes used to produce new 'evidence' that is not adequately tested in the target population. This is the case of data arising from a systematic review of clinical trials evaluating the use of direct acting oral anticoagulants for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Taking into account this example, here we discuss the concerns raised by the improper interpretation of the results. Our conclusions are three-fold. Data from economic analyses should not be shifted to a clinical recommendation. Simulation models should not be used to generate new 'evidence' that is not supported by experimental data and is misleading. Clinical judgment is therefore pivotal to interpret results emerging from economic analyses.