ArticleBMC health services research2008
Cost effectiveness of chest pain unit care in the NHS.
Article in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High-sensitivity troponin assays for early rule-out of acute myocardial infarction in people with acute chest pain: a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Prevalence, Mortality, and Indicators of Health Care Supply-Association Analysis of Cardiovascular Diseases in Germany.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- [Chest pain units or chest pain algorithm?].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Review
- Recent advances in the management of chronic stable angina I: approach to the patient, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk stratification, and gender disparities.Vascular health and risk management · 2010Review
- Review
- Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute chest pain is responsible for approximately 700,000 patient attendances per year at emergency departments in England and Wales. A single centre study of selected patients suggested that chest pain unit (CPU) care could be less costly and more effective than routine care for these patients, although a more recent multi-centre study cast doubt on the generalisability of these findings.
methodsOur economic evaluation involved modelling data from the ESCAPE multi-centre trial along with data from other sources to estimate the comparative costs and effects of CPU versus routine care. Cost effectiveness ratios (cost per QALY) were generated from our model.
resultsWe found that CPU compared to routine care resulted in a non-significant increase in effectiveness of 0.0075 QALYs per patient and a non-significant cost decrease of 32 pounds sterling per patient and thus a negative incremental cost effectiveness ratio. If we are willing to pay 20,000 pounds sterling for an additional QALY then there is a 70% probability that CPU care will be considered cost-effective.
conclusionOur analysis shows that CPU care is likely to be slightly more effective and less expensive than routine care, however, these estimates are surrounded by a substantial amount of uncertainty. We cannot reliably conclude that establishing CPU care will represent a cost-effective use of health service resources given the substantial amount of investment it would require.
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.