ReviewPharmacoEconomics2008
Methodological issues in evaluating cost effectiveness of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer: a need for improved modelling to aid decision making.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of economic evaluations of pharmacological cancer treatments in Spain between 1990 and 2010.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2013Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of the evidence sources applied to cost-effectiveness analyses for older women with primary breast cancer.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Review
- Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR).PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Article
- The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Structuring and validating a cost-effectiveness model of primary asthma prevention amongst children.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal adjuvant hormonal strategy in post-menopausal women with early breast cancer is a subject of ongoing debate. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been successfully evaluated in clinical trials that have compared them with a standard treatment of 5 years of tamoxifen. However, several options are available in terms of treatment schedule and selected drug. Systematic reviews of clinical trials and health economic evaluations attempt to contribute to the debate. The objective of this paper is to provide a critical review of existing health economic evaluations with a focus on those parameters and assumptions with the largest impact on final outcomes.A wide range of different inputs and assumptions exist, which make a comparison of results difficult, if not impossible. In particular, the modelling of recurrence rates over longer time horizons than those observed in clinical trials, a cornerstone of health economic modelling, is subject to quite different approaches. The practice of indirect comparison of different AIs without sufficiently acknowledging population differences is also bothersome. A list of key features (related to time horizon, clinical data input, patient subtypes, budget impact and model calibration) that an ideal model should have in order to better assist decision makers in this field is proposed.
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.