SynthesisThe British journal of ophthalmology2010
The quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of age-related macular degeneration therapeutics: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal of the evidence.
Synthesis in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Issues and Challenges.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Review
- Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo appraise the quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies of therapeutic interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
methodsSystematic review of the literature and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. A systematic search of the English-language literature for economic studies of therapeutic interventions for AMD from 1990 to March 2008 was performed.
resultsA total of 3637 articles were initially identified. Only 24 met eligibility criteria and were rated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies. The mean quality overall rating was 61.6, with quality scores ranging from 18 to 92. There was a higher mean quality score in the studies designed as clinical trials versus observational type designed studies (mean=74.7(11.4), 52.6 (16.5) respectively, p=0.002) and studies in which the statistical analyses were clearly presented versus studies in which the statistical analyses were not so clear (mean=74.3 (12.3), 53.1 (16.1) respectively, p=0.004). Interestingly, government funded studies exhibited a similar mean quality score to studies that were funded by industry (mean=71.0 (15.1), 61.7 (18.5) respectively, p=0.25). A general linear model was fitted using those independent variables which were significantly associated with quality score. The variables 'study design' and 'statistics presented clearly' were found to be jointly significant and explained nearly 70% of the variation in the dependent variable (R(2)=0.68).
conclusionsOur analysis reveals that the methodological quality of the health economic analysis of AMD therapeutic interventions in the literature is suboptimal. There is considerable variation in methodological rigour between the articles, and we have identified several attributes that are predictive of study quality.
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.