ObjectivesTo compare the common application methods of meta-analysis results used in economic evaluations so as to provide reference and suggestions for similar economic evaluations in future.MethodsFour methods were used to calculate the effectiveness deriving from meta-analysis of omeprazole and esomeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer, then substituted into the decision tree model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsMethod 1 used the risk difference as the incremental effectiveness. The ICER was ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) in the probability sensitivity analysis was approximately ￥2 600. Method 2 used the effective rate of the study group in high-quality literatures as the benchmark, calculated the effective rate of the control group according to the RR. The ICER was ￥2 016, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 000. Method 3 was based on the effective rate of the control group in high-quality literatures to calculate the effective rate of the study group according to RR. The ICER was ￥2 420 and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 200; Method 4 used literature weights to calculate the effectiveness, the ICER is ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was about ￥2 400.ConclusionsThe results of the four methods share little difference, and the sensitivity analysis results show that the base case analysis results are more robust. However, in the application process, method 1 lacks specific effectiveness of the two groups and underestimate the variation range of the effectiveness difference when one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Relevant assumptions are further required to limit the possibility of effectiveness calculated greater than 1 in sensitivity analysis among method 2 and 3. Comprehensively, method 4 can be recommended in the economic evaluations for fewer defects of calculating effectiveness.