Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26661078›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty.

Nicolas Martelli, Capucine Devaux, Hélène van den Brink, Judith Pineau, Patrice Prognon, Isabelle Borget

Abstract readSystematic 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of health economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for medical devices.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trends and Themes in the Study of Value in Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025
    Review
  3. The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Nicolas MartelliPharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.
Capucine DevauxPharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.
Hélène van den BrinkGRADES, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Judith PineauPharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.
Patrice PrognonPharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.
Isabelle BorgetGRADES, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290, Châtenay-Malabry, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextEconomic evaluations are far less frequently reported for medical devices than for drugs. In addition, little is known about the quality of existing economic evaluations, particularly for innovative devices, such as those used in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.

objectiveTo assess the level of evidence provided by the available economic evaluations for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of articles in English or French listed in the MEDLINE, PASCAL, COCHRANE and National Health Service Economic Evaluation databases, with limits on publication date (up to the date of the review, March 2014). STUDY SELECTION: We included only economic evaluations of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Editorial and methodological articles were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using two analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2008 and 2014. Eighteen (86%) were full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was the most frequent type of economic evaluation, and was present in 11 (52%) studies. Only three CEAs complied fully with the British Medical Journal checklist. The quality of the data sources used in the 21 studies was high, but the CEAs conforming to methodological guidelines did not use high-quality data sources for all components of the analysis.

conclusionsThis systematic review shows that the level of evidence in economic evaluations of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty is low, despite the recent publication of a large number of studies. This finding highlights the challenges to be faced to improve the quality of economic evaluations of medical devices.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEquipment and SuppliesHumansKyphoplastyOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVertebroplasty

Identifiers

PMID26661078
PMCPMC4675526

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.