Trial reportAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2007
Is shared care with annual hospital review better value for money than predominantly hospital-based care in patients with established stable rheumatoid arthritis?
Trial report in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services: a scoping review of interventions at the primary-secondary care interface.Journal of health services research & policy · 2017Article
- Realism and resources: Towards more explanatory economic evaluation.Evaluation (London, England : 1995) · 2016Article
- Good practice in shared care for inflammatory arthritis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness and cost effectiveness acceptability of symptom control delivered by shared care (SCSC) and aggressive treatment delivered in hospital (ATH) for established rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsEconomic data were collected within the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group randomised controlled trial of SCSC and ATH. A broad perspective was used (UK National Health Service, social support services and patients). Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, net benefit statistics and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analysis tested the robustness of the results to analytical assumptions.
resultsThe mean (SD) cost per person was 4540 pounds (4700) in the SCSC group and 4440 pounds (4900) in the ATH group. The mean (SD) QALYs per person for 3 years were 1.67 (0.56) in the SCSC group and 1.60 (0.60) in the ATH group. If decision makers are prepared to pay > or = 2000 pounds to gain 1 QALY, SCSC is likely to be cost effective in 60-90% of cases.
conclusionsThe primary economic analysis and sensitivity analyses indicate that SCSC is likely to be more cost effective than ATH in 60-90% of cases. This result seems to be robust to assumptions required by the analysis. This study is one of a limited number of randomised controlled trials to collect detailed resource use and health status data and estimate the costs and QALYs of treatment for established RA. This trial is one of the largest RA studies to use the EuroQol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.