ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010
Evaluation of benefit-risk.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value of anticancer drugs - a regulatory view.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
- A cohort study exploring determinants of safety-related regulatory actions for biopharmaceuticals.Drug safety · 2012Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug authorization, prescription and utilization are all based on benefit-risk assessment. This is made difficult by the apparent lack of objective means to measure the balance and by limitations regarding each of the two items. Benefit is sometimes measured by surrogate indicators of a real clinical advantage. It is assumed to be applicable to individuals even though it is measured in populations, and is represented in different ways that may convey different messages to physicians and patients. Risks are also hard to predict on an individual level. They may also be overlooked or revealed later than benefit, thus biasing the balance for a long time. Their causal relationship with the treatment is often not fully established. The benefit-risk balance itself has no generally recognized measure. This is why benefits and risks are hard to compare; either one or both may occur in single patients, and a risk-benefit profile that is acceptable in severe diseases may not be acceptable in diseases with a favourable prognosis. Pharmacoeconomics offers promising methods of health outcomes modelling using QALYs that take into consideration quality of life as well as survival. Primarily conceived as a guide for establishing the value of a treatment, they may prove useful as a means of trading efficacy and safety. However, quality of life is not always - or adequately - assessed in clinical studies. It is also not clear which is the most appropriate model to calculate QALYs for clinical purposes and how it can be used as a predictive tool at the individual level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20681742What 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.