ReviewKidney international supplements2013
Optimizing the cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder.
Review in Kidney international supplements, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 10 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
Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) is an important risk factor in patients with CKD, and some medications for treating CKD-MBD have been recently marketed. Because assessment of health-care cost-effectiveness is growing in importance with increases in health expenditures, several cost-effectiveness analyses for new medications such as sevelamer, lanthanum carbonate, cinacalcet hydrochloride, and paricalcitol have been conducted. The results of these analyses have stimulated discussion on the efficient use of these medications and, in some cases, have affected treatment recommendation. However, most of these studies had methodological problems, one of them being that the effectiveness of medications was estimated based on changes of surrogate parameters, such as vascular calcification or serum biochemistry values. Furthermore, even if cost-effectiveness analyses were based on a given clinical trial, the results might differ from country to country. To provide greater health benefits under limited health expenditures based on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, it is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of medications through well-designed clinical trials having mortality as the primary end point. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses need to be performed separately for each country.
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.