Literature Reviews
Whether you’re preparing for a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), developing an economic model, evaluating a pipeline asset or generating a value story, the quality of your evidence can directly influence stakeholder confidence and decision-making.
Our systematic literature review (SLR) team delivers rigorous, timely, and accessible evidence synthesis, helping clients make confident, evidence-based decisions.
Successful market access decisions depend on a robust evidence base
Our systematic review specialists deliver rigorous, transparent and user-friendly literature reviews that help clients navigate complex evidence landscapes, identify data gaps, and generate insights that stand up to scrutiny.
How we help:
- Establish evidence requirements for HTA and reimbursement
- Identify clinical, economic and epidemiological data
- Compare treatment options and quantify relative effectiveness
- Inform economic models and value communication materials
- Generate credible evidence to support payer engagement
- Identify evidence gaps and future research priorities
Our literature reviews capabilities
Whether you are preparing for reimbursement, adapting evidence for local markets, or identifying trends to support strategic decision-making, we provide the full spectrum of evidence synthesis deliverables.
Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs)
The gold standard for evidence synthesis. Designed to support HTA and JCA submissions, reimbursement dossiers, clinical development, and market access strategies, our SLRs provide a comprehensive and transparent assessment of the available evidence.
Rapid Reviews
Targeted evidence assessments for time-sensitive strategic decisions. Perfect for early-stage asset evaluation, pipeline scoping, and internal stakeholder alignment.
Targeted Literature Reviews
Focused reviews designed to answer specific clinical, economic or market access questions. Ideal for identifying baseline utility values, cost inputs for health economic models, or uncovering specific epidemiological data points.
Why work with us?
Source Health Economics combines experienced systematic reviewers, statisticians and market access specialists to deliver evidence that is not only methodologically robust but also designed to support real-world decision-making.
Build confidence in your evidence base
Whether you’re preparing for HTA, informing an economic model or assessing treatment value, we can help you identify, synthesise and communicate the evidence that matters.
Experienced specialists
Access a dedicated team of systematic reviewers with more than 50 years’ combined experience delivering literature reviews across complex evidence landscapes.
Independent validation
Build confidence in the strength of your evidence base through our collaboration with information specialists at the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), who independently validate our HTA search strings.
User-friendly outputs
Receive user-friendly deliverables that make it easier to identify key information, spot trends and communicate insight clearly, with concise summaries aligned to your research question.
Combining AI efficiency with expert oversight
We use advanced automation and AI tools responsibly to improve efficiency while maintaining scientific rigour. Guided by the principles of the RAISE (Responsible AI in evidence SynthEsis) framework, all AI-assisted activities are conducted using transparent, reproducible methodologies and reviewed by experienced researchers.
FAQ — Literature reviews and evidence synthesis
What's the difference between a systematic review, a rapid review, and a targeted review?
A systematic review comprehensively maps the full available evidence, using a reproducible search and screening process. A systematic review is generally required by HTA and regulatory bodies. A rapid review narrows the scope to answer a specific question quickly, suited to early-stage decisions such as pipeline scoping. A targeted review is the most focused of the three, built to answer one clinical, economic, or market access question, for example, sourcing utility values or cost inputs for an economic model.
What is a PICO framework and why does it matter for an HTA submission?
PICO – population, intervention, comparator, outcome – is the standard structure used to define a research question before a review begins. It provides the foundation for study selection, evidence synthesis, and reporting, helping ensure the review generates evidence that is relevant to HTA bodies such as NICE, G-BA, HAS, and the EU Joint Clinical Assessment
How do you make sure a literature review's search strategy meets HTA quality standards?
Our search strings are independently validated by information specialists at SCHARR (the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research), adding an external layer of quality assurance beyond internal review. This is intended to give HTA reviewers confidence in the search strategy’s rigour before they assess the evidence itself.
Do you use AI in literature reviews, and does that affect quality or transparency?
We use advanced automation and AI tools responsibly as part of our evidence synthesis processes. Guided by the principles of the Responsible AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) framework, all AI-assisted activities are subject to expert human oversight and transparent methodologies to maintain scientific rigour and reproducibility.
Can literature reviews support an early-stage or pipeline asset, not just a submission that's ready to go?
Yes, rapid and targeted reviews are specifically suited to earlier-stage needs, such as pipeline asset evaluation or internal stakeholder alignment, in advance of a full HTA submission being prepared.