Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17803333›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2007

Modelling disease progression in Alzheimer's disease: a review of modelling methods used for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Colin Green

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A review of the methods used to estimate the cost of Alzheimer's disease in the United States.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2011
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Health economic modeling for Alzheimer's disease: Expert perspectives.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Societal and Family Lifetime Cost of Dementia: Implications for Policy.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Estimation and validation of a multiattribute model of Alzheimer disease progression.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Colin GreenInstitute for Health Service Research, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. colin.green@pms.ac.uk
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The literature reporting economic evaluations related to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has developed over the last decade. Most analyses have used economic models to estimate the cost effectiveness of drugs for the treatment of AD. This review considers the range of methods used in the published cost-effectiveness literature to model AD progression and the effect of interventions on the progression of AD. The review builds on and updates an earlier systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on drugs for AD. Systematic and rigorous methods were used to search the literature for economic evaluations estimating the cost effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine in AD. The literature search covered a wide range of electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE), and included literature from the inception of databases up to the end of 2005. The search identified 22 published economic evaluations. An outline and brief critical review of the identified studies is provided, and thereafter the methods used to model disease progression were considered in more detail. The review employs recent guidance on good practice in decision-analytic modelling in HTA to critically review the modelling methods used. Using this guidance, the models are assessed against the broad criteria of model structure, data inputs and assessment of uncertainty and inconsistency. Concerns were noted over the model structure employed in all models. The reliance on cognitive scores to model AD, the progression of the disease, and the effect of treatment on costs and consequences is regarded as a serious limitation in almost all of the studies identified. There are also limitations over the data used to populate published models, especially around the failure of studies to document and establish the basis for the modelling of treatment effects. It is also clear that studies modelling AD progression, and subsequently the cost effectiveness of treatment, have not addressed uncertainty or consistency (internal and/or external) in sufficient detail. Further research is required on more appropriate methods for the modelling of AD progression. In the meantime, future economic evaluations of treatment need to be more explicit on the methods used to model AD, and the data used to populate models.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAlzheimer DiseaseDisease ProgressionDonepezilGalantamineHumansIndansMemantineModels, EconomicPhenylcarbamatesPiperidinesRivastigmineDonepezilGalantamineIndansMemantinePhenylcarbamatesPiperidinesRivastigmine

Identifiers

PMID17803333
OpenAlexW2087534268

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.