Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25657899›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

Systematic literature review to evaluate and characterize the health economics and outcomes research studies in India.

Divya Mishra, Sunita R Nair

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cost-effectiveness Evaluations Among the Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

2 authors.

Divya MishraAssociate Medical Director, Oncology, Asia Medical Sciences Group, Quintiles Research (India) Private Limited (QRPL), New Delhi, India.
Sunita R NairHead, Knowledge Services, Capita India Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis systematic literature review was conducted to identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in India. MATERIALS AND

methodsStudies published in English language between 1999 and 2012 were retrieved from Embase and PubMed databases using relevant search strategies. Two researchers independently reviewed the studies as per Cochrane methodology; information on the type of research and the outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed for model-based health economic studies using a published 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

resultsOf 546 studies screened, 132 were included in the review. The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses [(CEA) 54 studies], cost analyses (19 studies), and burden of illness [(BOI) 18 studies]. The outcomes evaluated were direct and indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Direct medical costs assessed cost of medicines, monitoring costs, consultation and hospital charges, along with direct non-medical costs (travel and food for patients and care givers). Loss of productivity and loss of income of patients and care givers were identified as the components of indirect cost. Overall, 33 studies assessed the quality of life (QoL), and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) was the most commonly used instrument. Quality assessment for modeling studies showed that most studies were of high quality [mean (range) QHES score to be 75.5 (34-93)].

conclusionsThis review identified various patterns of pharmacoeconomic studies and good-quality CEA studies. However, there is a need for better assessment of utilization of healthcare resources in India.

Indexed as

Cost analysishealth economicsIndiaoutcomes researchpharmacoeconomic

Identifiers

PMID25657899
PMCPMC4314843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.