Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19536026›Full record

ArticleMedical care2009

Microcosting quantity data collection methods.

Kevin D Frick

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Trial
  16. Cost of point-of-care lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan antigen testing in HIV-positive adults in South Africa.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2018
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

96 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

1 author.

Kevin D FrickDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Health Services Research and Development Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205-1901, USA. kfrick@jhsph.edu

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200700356P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrocosting studies collect detailed data on resources used and the value of those resources. Such studies are useful for estimating the cost of new technologies or new community-based interventions, for producing estimates in studies that include nonmarket goods, and for studying within-procedure cost variation.

objectivesThe objectives of this article were to (1) describe basic microcosting methods focusing on quantity data collection; and (2) suggest a research agenda to improve methods in and the interpretation of microcosting. RESEARCH

designExamples in the published literature were used to illustrate steps in the methods of gathering data (primarily quantity data) for a microcosting study.

resultsQuantity data collection methods that were illustrated in the literature include the use of (1) administrative databases at single facilities, (2) insurer administrative data, (3) forms applied across multiple settings, (4) an expert panel, (5) surveys or interviews of one or more types of providers; (6) review of patient charts, (7) direct observation, (8) personal digital assistants, (9) program operation logs, and (10) diary data.

conclusionsFuture microcosting studies are likely to improve if research is done to compare the validity and cost of different data collection methods; if a critical review is conducted of studies done to date; and if the combination of the results of the first 2 steps described are used to develop guidelines that address common limitations, critical judgment points, and decisions that can reduce limitations and improve the quality of studies.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionHealth Services ResearchHealth SurveysHumansMedical RecordsObservation

Identifiers

PMID19536026
PMCPMC2714580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.