ReviewThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2010
Modeling stroke management: a qualitative review of cost-effectiveness analyses.
Review in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bariatric surgery - can we afford to do it or deny doing it?Frontline gastroenterology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review recent economic analyses and determine if means of improving methodology used in modeling stroke management may exist. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingThe Medline database was searched for pharmacoeconomic models of treatments or interventions in acute, non-transitory ischemic stroke. Search terms were: stroke, cost, cost-effectiveness, cost analysis, stroke management, model, modeling, and economic. All English-language articles published from January 1997 to January 2008 were reviewed.
resultsTen Markov models and three decision analytical models were identified. All models had a societal perspective and all but one had lifetime horizons. They were all based on common patient states of disability, mortality and recurrence of stroke. Inputs used in the models were transparent and valid. Intracranial hemorrhage, cardiovascular events and data closely related to local settings were not systematically considered. One-way sensitivity analyses were the most common, but few parameters were tested and these varied between models. Consensus key drivers were therefore difficult to determine.
conclusionThe overall structure of the models reviewed was sound. However, they should include more systematically cardiovascular events and intracranial hemorrhage, as well as local epidemiological data. Further multi-way sensitivity analyses would help to identify key cost drivers with greater precision and robustness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20238137What 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.