The gold standard for CER is head-to-head clinical trial data (ie, a randomized controlled study) comparing a new product with an existing product. However, when this is not available, manufacturers turn to Xcenda for evidence synthesis that includes systematic review and meta-analysis. Regulatory bodies around the world (FDA, CADTH, NICE, PBAC) acknowledge the value of utilizing these methods to establish the comparative effectiveness of health technologies, especially when direct head-to-head evidence is limited or unavailable. Watch the videos below and learn more about Xcenda's approach to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

  • CER Methodologies

    Turn to Xcenda to Generate the Comparative Evidence that Payers Demand

    Watch Video
  • Meta-Analyses

    Turn to Xcenda to Establish Comparative Effectiveness When Head-to-Head Evidence is Limited

    Watch Video
  • Analyses Payers Respect

    Turn to Xcenda for Rigorous and Transparent Methodologies

    Watch Video

1 of 7 Items

Broader Experience Delivers Greater Value

As we guide manufacturers in the expanding area of comparative effectiveness research, Xcenda applies nearly 2 decades of experience in conducting literature reviews, developing dossiers, and performing complex statistical analyses in numerous therapeutic areas. Manufacturers turn to Xcenda for turnkey support, from initial literature evaluations, to meta-analysis, and to publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. We leverage our expertise in economic modeling and database studies in addition to value propositions, formulary dossiers, and REMS assessment to demonstrate the real-world application of results from meta-analytical studies.

Dig Deeper