Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10539119›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics1999

Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

J Brown, M Sculpher

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 1999. 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. Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014
    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.

J BrownHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, England. jacqueline.brown@brunel.ac.uk
M Sculpher

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generic measures of benefit which employ individuals' preferences, such as the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), are, in principle, the most appropriate outcome measure to use in the economic evaluation of cancer therapies. They can reflect the trade-offs between health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and length of life, between different dimensions of HR-QOL and between the process (e.g. convenience) and outcome characteristics of treatments. This paper reviews the methods literature on preference-based measures of benefit in economic evaluation, with the aim of establishing good practice for applied studies using these methods. A systematic review of applied economic evaluations of cancer therapies which have used these types of benefit measure was performed with the aim of establishing whether studies in this area adhere to good practice. In total, 29 studies were reviewed, and the results showed that, in general, good methods are not being adopted. This may be due, in part, to authors not having the space in journals to detail their methods fully, but it is likely also to reflect the fact that good methods for the use of preference-based measures of benefit in economic evaluation have not been adequately disseminated.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansNeoplasms

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.