A glimpse into the black box of cost-effectiveness analyses.

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

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

1. A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.PloS one · 2013
   Pooled it
2. When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.PloS one · 2013
   Pooled it
3. Embracing the science of value in health.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
   Article
4. Assessing cost-utility of predictive biomarkers in oncology: a streamlined approach.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test.2011

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as