The decision making in the field of health both from a clinical and administrative point of view requires, among other aspects, to be based both on the best research evidence of health technologies and on the best use of the scarce economic resources with which it is usually had. In the clinical setting, systematic reviews of controlled and randomized clinical trials provide valuable information by summarizing the best evidence. On the other hand, economic evaluations of health technologies are useful in providing comparative information between the costs of said technology, per unit of outcome of the disease in terms usually of effectiveness or utility value. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies could in principle be considered a very good tool for decision making, however, it is important to consider that economic evaluations may present methodological weaknesses that would limit their quality. Systematic reviews of clinical trials have clear methodologies to perform them, including the risk assessment of bias and quality of both the included studies and the same review. In the case of economic evaluations, there is still heterogeneity in the methodology and lack of standardization in the way of evaluating its quality, which affects the development of systematic reviews of economic evaluations. However, this review identifies tools that can be used to evaluate quality and risk of bias in economic evaluations, as well as the same reviews.