SynthesisSystematic reviews2013
Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Automated oxygen delivery for preterm infants with respiratory dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Community Guide Methods for Systematic Reviews of Economic Evidence.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies: data harmonisation and methodological issues.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- The crime, mental health, and economic impacts of prearrest diversion of people with mental health problems: A systematic review.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2019Pooled it
- Disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- The Economic Impact of Community-Based Allied Health on the Acute Sector: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
- PROTOCOL: Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Article
- When complexity matters: a step-by-step guide to incorporating a complexity perspective in guideline development for public health and health system interventions.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2018Article
- Mind the Gap! A Multilevel Analysis of Factors Related to Variation in Published Cost-Effectiveness Estimates within and between Countries.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2016Article
- Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?' or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?' Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources available?' has received less attention. This latter question can be addressed by applying an economic lens to the systematic review process.This paper reflects on the value and desire for the consideration by end users for coverage of an economic perspective in a Cochrane review and outlines two potential approaches and future directions.
methodsTwo frameworks to guide review authors who are seeking to include an economic perspective are outlined. The first involves conducting a full systematic review of economic evaluations that is integrated into a review of intervention effects. The second involves developing a brief economic commentary. The two approaches share a set of common stages but allow the tailoring of the economic component of the Cochrane review to the skills and resources available to the review team.
resultsThe number of studies using the methods outlined in the paper is limited, and further examples are needed both to explore the value of these approaches and to further develop them. The rate of progress will hinge on the organisational leadership, capacity and resources available to the CCEMG, author teams and other Cochrane entities. Particular methodological challenges to overcome relate to understanding the key economic trade-offs and casual relationships for a given decision problem and informing the development of evaluations designed to support local decision-makers.
conclusionsMethods for incorporating economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane intervention reviews are established. Their role is not to provide a precise estimate of 'cost-effectiveness' but rather to help end-users of Cochrane reviews to determine the implications of the economic components of reviews for their own specific decisions.
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.