Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26465773›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Methods Used in Economic Evaluations of Chronic Kidney Disease Testing - A Systematic Review.

Andrew J Sutton, Katie Breheny, Jon Deeks, Kamlesh Khunti, Claire Sharpe, Ryan S Ottridge, Paul E Stevens, Paul Cockwell, Philp A Kalra, Edmund J Lamb and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew J SuttonHealth Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Katie BrehenyHealth Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Jon DeeksSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Kamlesh KhuntiUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Claire SharpeKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ryan S OttridgeBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Cancer Sciences, Robert Aitken Institute, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Paul E StevensKent Kidney Care Centre, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom.
Paul CockwellQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Division of Immunity and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Philp A KalraDepartment of Renal Medicine, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.
Edmund J LambClinical Biochemistry, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury Kent, United Kingdom.
eGFR-C study group
University of Birmingham · GBEast Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit · GBKing's College London · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/103/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is high in general populations around the world. Targeted testing and screening for CKD are often conducted to help identify individuals that may benefit from treatment to ameliorate or prevent their disease progression.

aimsThis systematic review examines the methods used in economic evaluations of testing and screening in CKD, with a particular focus on whether test accuracy has been considered, and how analysis has incorporated issues that may be important to the patient, such as the impact of testing on quality of life and the costs they incur.

methodsArticles that described model-based economic evaluations of patient testing interventions focused on CKD were identified through the searching of electronic databases and the hand searching of the bibliographies of the included studies.

resultsThe initial electronic searches identified 2,671 papers of which 21 were included in the final review. Eighteen studies focused on proteinuria, three evaluated glomerular filtration rate testing and one included both tests. The full impact of inaccurate test results was frequently not considered in economic evaluations in this setting as a societal perspective was rarely adopted. The impact of false positive tests on patients in terms of the costs incurred in re-attending for repeat testing, and the anxiety associated with a positive test was almost always overlooked. In one study where the impact of a false positive test on patient quality of life was examined in sensitivity analysis, it had a significant impact on the conclusions drawn from the model.

conclusionFuture economic evaluations of kidney function testing should examine testing and monitoring pathways from the perspective of patients, to ensure that issues that are important to patients, such as the possibility of inaccurate test results, are properly considered in the analysis.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansKidney Function TestsMaleRenal Insufficiency, ChronicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26465773
PMCPMC4605841
OpenAlexW2186264655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.