SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2014
Cost effectiveness of treatments for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.
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.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents the most common subset of cardiovascular heart diseases and relates to high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide and, consequently, to both the direct and indirect costs to the health system and society. Given the rising healthcare costs combined with budgetary constraints, health care systems and decision makers are faced with challenging decisions and the need to choose alternative treatments that not only improve patient quantity and quality of life but are also economically attractive.
objectivesTo systematically review the published literature and to identify studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of different treatments for patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library until October 2013, with no limit on publication date. STUDY SELECTION: The search was conducted using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, limiting articles to those published in the English language and those reporting results of economic evaluations [i.e. cost-effectiveness (CEA), cost-utility (CUA) cost-minimisation (CMA) cost-consequence (CCA) and cost-benefit (CBA) analyses] of the different treatment therapies used for managing patients presenting with NSTE-ACS. Publications such as editorials, letters to the editor, posters, expert opinions, reviews, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses were excluded. STUDY APPRAISAL
methodsAll studies included were assessed for their methodological quality using the British Medical Journal checklist.
resultsA total of 39 studies were included, presenting a wide variation in terms of methodological approaches and settings, thus resulting in different ranges of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each treatment evaluated.
conclusionsEvidence from the present systematic review suggests that the majority of the available treatments represent either cost-saving or cost-effective options for NSTE-ACS patients. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of the available treatments was found to be dependent on various factors, particularly the risk profile of patients and the cost of treatment, and hence there is a need to take these into consideration when making decisions and choices.
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.