SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2014
A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrombosis inhibitors can be used to treat acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, there are various alternative treatment strategies, of which some have been compared using health economic decision models.
objectiveTo assess the quality of health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and to identify areas for quality improvement. DATA SOURCES: The literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methodsA review of the quality of health economic decision models was conducted by two independent reviewers, using the Philips checklist.
resultsTwenty-one relevant studies were identified. Differences were apparent regarding the model type (six decision trees, four Markov models, eight combinations, three undefined models), the model structure (types of events, Markov states) and the incorporation of data (efficacy, cost and utility data). Critical issues were the absence of particular events (e.g. thrombocytopenia, stroke) and questionable usage of utility values within some studies. LIMITATIONS: As we restricted our search to health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors, interesting aspects related to the quality of studies of adjacent medical areas that compared stents or procedures could have been missed.
conclusionsThis review identified areas where recommendations are indicated regarding the quality of future ACS decision models. For example, all critical events and relevant treatment options should be included. Models also need to allow for changing event probabilities to correctly reflect ACS and to incorporate appropriate, age-specific utility values and decrements when conducting cost-utility analyses.
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.