Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16495332›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

Chaim M Bell, David R Urbach, Joel G Ray, Ahmed Bayoumi, Allison B Rosen, Dan Greenberg, Peter J Neumann

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 141 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
141citing papers in PubMed, 29 pooled it
–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

141 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of the 21-Gene Assay in Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. The place of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment algorithm of diabetes type 2: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Chaim M BellSt Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1W8. bellc@smh.toronto.on.ca
David R Urbach
Joel G Ray
Ahmed Bayoumi
Allison B Rosen
Dan Greenberg
Peter J Neumann

Funding

A Comprehensive Database of Cost-Effectiveness AnalysesR01HS010919 · AHRQ · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI NEUMANN, PETER J. · 2001 to 2003
–
AHRQ HHS R01 HS10919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below 20,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 100,000 dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon.

designSystematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases.

main outcome measuresIncremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication.

resultsApproximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), 50,000 dollars/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and 100,000 dollars/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.

conclusionMost published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPublication BiasQuality-Adjusted Life YearsConflict of InterestHumansResearch Support as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16495332
PMCPMC1410902

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.