Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15517297›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2004

[Conceptual and methodological basics of cost assessments in rheumatology].

J Ruof, J L Hülsemann, T Mittendorf, J-M von der Schulenburg, H Zeidler, S Merkesdal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2004. 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. 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

6 authors.

J RuofAbteilung für Rheumatologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. joerg.ruof@roche.com
J L Hülsemann
T Mittendorf
J-M von der Schulenburg
H Zeidler
S Merkesdal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-of-illness studies in rheumatic conditions show an enormous variability in reported costs. Reasons are-among others-a lack of standardization with regards to relevant cost domains and the utilization of various insufficiently validated costing sources. A flow scheme is presented which may serve as a systematic basis for a valid costing analysis. The scheme includes: i) Selection of relevant cost domains. A comprehensive matrix of cost domains may be used as a framework. According to the specific aims of any costing study individual domains might be selected. ii) An adequate level of detail has to be determined taking into account factors such as the validity of the data collection and the feasibility. iii) Appropriate objective (i. e. usage of administrative data) or subjective (i. e. patient-derived) data sources have to be identified under consideration of respective strengths and weaknesses. While administrative sources provide a valid access to costing data accessibility and feasibility are important advantages of patient-derived costing procedures. iv) During data collection the potential bias due to protocol-driven costs and the differentiation of disease-related from other health care costs should be considered. v) The data analysis should support a transparent presentation of the costing data both in physical and monetary units. In summary, no 'gold standard' has been established for costing studies yet. However, valid costing approaches might follow the flow scheme presented in this analysis.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessArthritis, RheumatoidBiasCosts and Cost AnalysisData CollectionGermanyHumansNational Health ProgramsReproducibility of ResultsRheumatic Diseases

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.