ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Health state utility values for diabetic retinopathy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Pooled it
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Deep Learning and Trained Human Graders for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Nationwide Program.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Review
- Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.Applied health economics and health policy · 2020Article
- Health state utility values in schizophrenia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based mental health · 2019Article
- A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Article
- Article
- Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?PharmacoEconomics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with diabetic retinopathy tend to have lower levels of health-related quality of life than individuals with no retinopathy. Strategies for screening and treatment have been shown to be cost-effective. In order to reduce the bias in cost-effectiveness estimates, systematic reviews of health state utility values (HSUVs) are crucial for health technology assessment and the development of decision analytic models. A review and synthesis of HSUVs for the different stages of disease progression in diabetic retinopathy has not previously been conducted. METHODS/
designWe will conduct a systematic review of the available literature that reports HSUVs for people with diabetic retinopathy, in correspondence with current stage of disease progression and/or visual acuity. We will search Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and EconLit to identify relevant English-language articles. Data will subsequently be synthesized using linear mixed effects modeling meta-regression. Additionally, reported disease severity classifications will be mapped to a four-level grading scale for diabetic retinopathy. DISCUSSION: The systematic review and meta-analysis will provide important evidence for future model-based economic evaluations of technologies for diabetic retinopathy. The meta-regression will enable the estimation of utility values at different disease stages for patients with particular characteristics and will also highlight where the design of the study and HSUV instrument have influenced the reported utility values. We believe this protocol to be the first of its kind to be published. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014012891.
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.