Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10163966›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1996

Role of decision analysis in relation to clinical trials and a US perspective of the Battelle model.

B E Hillner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

B E HillnerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economic assessment of evolving technologies is assuming increasing importance worldwide. One form of economic assessment uses decision analysis, a simulation technique, to determine whether performing a clinical trial is worthwhile. This type of assessment may streamline data collection within a clinical trial, and can aid in the interpretation of a trial result with substantial benefits and toxicities. Although second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is in common use, its benefit is unclear and it is associated with substantial cost. A database search of currently active or recently closed randomised phase III comparative trials for metastatic breast cancer found only 6 trials involving a comparison of chemotherapies. Only 1 trial allowed prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Given the paucity of forthcoming clinical data, decision analysis is an appropriate tool for estimating the effectiveness of potential treatments with second-line agents for metastatic breast cancer. The findings of the Battelle decision analysis model, described in this issue, identified response rates and 1-year mortality as the key areas of focus for comparative trials. Decision analysis can improve the design and efficacy of prospective, comparative trials but cannot replace them.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision Support TechniquesBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplasm Metastasis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.