| Verified against primary record | |
| What a systematic review is | A review using explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies[1] |
|---|---|
| A common misuse | The reporting guideline should not be used to assess a review’s conduct or methodological quality[1] |
| Records read | A reporting guideline and five reviews of this field, 9 October 2026 |
| Independently reported | |
| 2010 scoping review | 203 sources accepted, of which 6 were empirical studies and 107 were popular media[2] |
| 2026 decision-making review | 25 studies representing 23 distinct samples, 12 of them qualitative[3] |
| 2026 complications review | 37 studies, of which 35 were case series or case reports[4] |
| Bands apply only to the rows beneath them. The two 2010 reviews are scoping reviews, not systematic reviews, and their counts describe the literature of that time. | |
Systematic reviews of medical tourism are the best available summary of what is known, and the most reliable way to see how little that is. Read together, the handful that exist show a literature that has improved in method while remaining thin in primary data.
What makes a review systematic
The reporting standard for this design defines it as a review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies.[1] In practice that means a protocol registered before the search, a stated search strategy across named databases, stated inclusion criteria, and an assessment of risk of bias in the studies found.
One correction is worth making because it is so often got wrong. The standard states that it should not be used to assess the conduct or methodological quality of systematic reviews.[1] It governs reporting. A review described as compliant with it has described its methods fully; that is not a claim that the methods were good.
The two 2010 scoping reviews
Two companion reviews published in 2010 remain the most quoted characterisation of this field, and both are scoping reviews rather than systematic reviews, which means they mapped a literature without appraising risk of bias. That is normal for the design and is not a failing, but they should not be cited as systematic reviews.
The review of effects screened 348 sources and accepted 203, of which 6 were empirical studies reporting primary data, 107 were popular media, and 91 were reports, legal reviews, commentaries, editorials and business briefs. Its conclusion is that what is known is minimal, unreliable, geographically restricted and mostly based on speculation, and that there is no reliable hard data on patient numbers, flows, treatment types and success rates.[2] The companion review of patient experience gathered 348 sources, included 216, and found that only a small minority reported on empirical studies involving the collection of primary data, which it put at five.[5]
Both describe the literature as it stood to roughly 2009. Sixteen years on, the figures of six and five empirical studies should not be presented as the current state of the field.
The two 2026 reviews, and their deliberate narrowness
Method has improved substantially. A 2026 review of decision-making about bariatric and cosmetic medical tourism from countries with universal healthcare states that it adheres to the reporting guideline, was pre-registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews, and appraised studies with a mixed methods appraisal tool. It is candid about two choices: no studies were excluded based on quality, and overall quality scores were not calculated for each included study. It included 25 studies representing 23 distinct samples, 12 qualitative, 11 quantitative and two mixed methods, searching three databases plus one grey-literature source.[3]
Its verdict on the quantitative base is that, due to its scant availability, quantitative data was mainly used to supplement and validate the qualitative findings, and that prospective studies with generalisable samples are needed, particularly for bariatric tourism.[3]
The second 2026 review examined complications and costs falling on the United Kingdom’s health service. It included 37 studies covering 655 patients, of which 35 were case series or case reports and two were surveys of plastic surgeons, with Turkey the most common destination, and reported costs of 1,058 to 19,549 pounds per patient in 2024 prices at a certainty rating of very low. Its most striking line is that it did not identify any studies investigating benefits.[4] That is a statement about the retrieved literature, not evidence that benefits do not exist.
Neither 2026 review is a review of medical tourism in general. One covers two procedure groups, outbound from universal-healthcare countries, on decision-making only. The other covers one country’s health service, elective surgery, outward travel, and complications and costs only. Citing either as a general finding about medical travel overstates it.
What the reviews found, side by side
The 2010 review of effects accepted 203 sources and found 6 empirical studies. The 2010 review of patient experience included 216 sources and found 5. The 2026 decision-making review included 25 studies across 23 distinct samples, of which 11 were quantitative and 2 mixed methods. The 2026 complications review included 37 studies, 35 of them case series or case reports. Across sixteen years the number of primary quantitative studies retrievable on any given question in this field has remained in the low tens.
A 2024 critical review of 131 studies published in indexed journals between 1987 and 2022 records that a comprehensive and systematic review of medical tourism research is lacking.[6] On the evidence above that is a fair description: there are good reviews of parts of this subject and none of the whole.
A citation correction
One attribution circulates wrongly often enough to be worth fixing. The scoping snapshot of post-2010 evidence published in the journal Maturitas is by Lunt, Horsfall and Hanefeld, 2016. It is frequently cited as Lunt and Carrera; Carrera is not an author of that paper.[7]
See also
- Medical tourism research methods, which designs are feasible in this field
- Case studies in medical tourism research, the design that dominates the reviews
- Conflicts of interest in medical tourism research, what the literature is made of
- Medical tourism statistics, the measurement problems the reviews describe
References
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement, an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 2021;10:89, published 29 March 2021; co-published as BMJ 2021;372:n71. Verified against primary record: definition and scope boxes read in the published statement. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- Johnston R, Crooks VA, Snyder J, Kingsbury P. What is known about the effects of medical tourism in destination and departure countries? A scoping review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 2010;9:24. Independently reported: peer-reviewed scoping review read in full. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- Nichol B, Ray D, Tanner L, Oliver EJ, Vlaev I, Sniehotta F, McGowan L. Decision-making about bariatric and cosmetic medical tourism from countries with universal healthcare, a rapid systematic review. Globalization and Health, 2026;22:45, published 28 March 2026. Independently reported: peer-reviewed systematic review, methods and results read. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- England C, Bromham N, Needham-Taylor A, Hounsome J, Gillen E, Ingram BJ, Davies J, Edwards A, Lewis R. Complications and costs to the UK National Health Service due to outward medical tourism for elective surgery, a rapid review. BMJ Open, 2026;16(1):e109050, published 13 January 2026; preprint at medRxiv 10.1101/2025.04.02.25325086. Independently reported: publicly commissioned review, preprint full text read. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- Crooks VA, Kingsbury P, Snyder J, Johnston R. What is known about the patient’s experience of medical tourism? A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 2010;10:266. Independently reported: peer-reviewed scoping review, abstract read. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- Wong AKF, Vongvisitsin TB, Li P, Pan Y, Ryan C. Revisiting medical tourism research, critical reviews and implications for destination management and marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 2024;33:100924. Independently reported: repository record carrying the publisher abstract. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
- Lunt N, Horsfall DG, Hanefeld J. Medical tourism, a snapshot of evidence on treatment abroad. Maturitas, 2016, pages 37-44. Independently reported: institutional repository record of the published paper, abstract read. Retrieved 9 October 2026.
Sourcing note: the reporting guideline and the five reviews were opened and read on 9 October 2026, three of them at abstract or repository-record level as marked. The two 2010 reviews are scoping reviews and their counts are reported with that scope and date attached. The two 2026 reviews are described by the boundaries they set themselves, because both are commonly cited as though general. The citation correction for the 2016 Maturitas paper was made by reading the repository record for that paper.