Health Economics and Outcomes Research Editing and Proofreading Services

An economic model produces a number, and the number is largely decided before any modelling happens — by the choice of what the new treatment is being compared against. Pick a comparator that is expensive and no longer widely used, and cost-effectiveness follows almost automatically. Assessors know this. It is the first thing they check, and it is the thing submissions defend least well.

We edit what HEOR functions and consultancies produce — economic model reports and their assumption documentation, comparator selection justifications, systematic review and indirect comparison narratives, budget impact analyses, value dossiers and payer submissions, real-world evidence study reports and protocols, patient-reported outcome and utility documentation, cost and resource use descriptions, responses to assessor and committee questions, and publication manuscripts from economic and outcomes work. Our editors work on the choice everything downstream depends on.

The comparator justification is where a health economic submission is either credible or transparently constructed, and its weakness is asserting relevance rather than establishing it. A submission stating that the chosen comparator represents current standard of care has made the claim on which everything rests and supported it with nothing. We work through these so the comparator is justified with evidence of actual use in the relevant setting — prescribing data, audit data, guideline position, clinician survey — with its date and source, since practice moves and a comparator justified from a 2019 guideline may describe nobody's clinic; so all plausible comparators are named, including the ones that are cheaper and the ones that make the result worse, with the reason each was or was not selected; so where multiple treatments are in use, the mix is described and the analysis addresses it rather than choosing the single most convenient one; so any indirect comparison is presented with its connectivity, its assumptions and the heterogeneity between the trials being linked, given that this is where indirect comparisons fail and where committees look; so the results against the less favourable comparator are shown as a scenario rather than omitted; and so the submission says plainly what happens to the conclusion under each alternative. Submissions written this way get argued about on the model rather than on the setup.

Everything you send is treated in confidence, including models, clinical data and submission material. We are editors rather than health economists, statisticians or market access advisers, and we offer no view on comparators, models or cost-effectiveness. What we can do is make the foundational choice defensible on the page.