Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25017433›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2014

Peritoneal dialysis and in-centre haemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective.

Catrin Treharne, Frank Xiaoqing Liu, Murat Arici, Lydia Crowe, Usman Farooqui

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Maintenance Dialysis throughout the World in Years 1990 and 2010.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The future of peritoneal dialysis.Clinical kidney journal · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catrin TreharneAbacus International, Oxfordshire, UK.
Frank Xiaoqing Liu
Murat Arici
Lydia Crowe
Usman Farooqui
Baxter (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith limited healthcare resources available, cost-effective provision of dialysis to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is important.

objectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of peritoneal dialysis (PD) use versus current practice among incident ESRD patients requiring dialysis.

methodsA Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of increasing uptake of PD to 39 and 50 % versus current practice of 22 % PD from a UK National Health Service perspective for the year of 2013-2014. A scenario with 5 % PD was also considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

resultsFive- and 10-year discounted total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient for the current scenario (22 % PD) were £96,307 and 2.104, and £133,339 and 3.301, respectively. Use of PD in 39 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year total per-patient cost savings of £3,180 and £4,102 versus current usage alongside total per-patient QALY increases of 0.017 and 0.020. Use of PD in 50 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year per-patient cost savings of £5,238 and £6,758 versus current usage alongside per-patient QALY increases of 0.029 and 0.033. Thus, increasing use of PD was associated with marginally better outcomes and lower costs. Cost savings were driven by lower treatment costs and reduced transport requirements for PD versus haemodialysis. Reducing PD use was associated with higher costs and a small reduction in QALYs.

conclusionsThese findings suggest increasing PD use among incident dialysis patients would be cost-effective, associated with reduced costs and potential modest improvements in quality of life.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth ExpendituresHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMarkov ChainsModels, EconometricPeritoneal DialysisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25017433
PMCPMC4110409
OpenAlexW2011999228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.