Survival analysis has not been conducted systematically in HTAs. A systematic approach such as the one proposed here is required to reduce the possibility of bias in cost-effectiveness results and inconsistency between technology assessments.

The limitations associated with switching adjustment methods such as the RPSFTM and IPCW mean that they are appropriate in different scenarios. In some scenarios, both methods may be prone to bias; "2-stage" methods should be considered, and intention-to-treat analyses may sometimes produce the least bias. The data requirements of adjustment methods also have important implications for clinical trialists.