Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10537432›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1999

Patient self-reports in pharmacoeconomic studies. Their use and impact on study validity.

C Evans, B Crawford

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Predictors of frequent recourse to health professionals by people with severe mental disorders.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2015
    Article
  17. Patient-reported quality of supportive care among patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

C EvansMAPI Values, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. chris.evans@mapivaluesusa.com
B Crawford

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The validity of estimates of resource utilisation based on patient recall has not been firmly established. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies that used patient self-reports to derive estimates of healthcare resource utilisation, direct nonmedical costs and indirect costs. Previous work in this area was examined to determine the issues that were most important in determining whether patient self-reports lead to valid and unbiased estimates in cost-effectiveness studies. This study reviews and highlights areas where patient self-reports lead to reliable estimates and where their use may lead to erroneous conclusions. In particular, it is noted that patient recall of resource utilisation declines over time, that the salience of a treatment episode affects recall and that the perceived social acceptability of a condition and other confounding factors may influence patient reporting. Moreover, it appears that not all elements of healthcare consumption are recalled to the same degree: medication use tends to be recalled with less accuracy than hospitalisation. In terms of the potential impact on cost-effectiveness results, the main concern is with problems of validity rather than bias, although bias may occur when the results are applied to league tables.

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalPatientsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental RecallProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

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.