Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27154484›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods.

Nawaraj Bhattarai, Peter McMeekin, Christopher Price, Luke Vale

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Burden of Travel is not Associated with Adherence to Follow-up Appointments - A Call for Centralization of Cleft Care in Germany.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perspectives on the underlying drivers of urgent and emergency care reconfiguration in Ireland.The International journal of health planning and management · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Nawaraj BhattaraiHealth Economics Group Newcastle, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Peter McMeekinHealth Economics Group Newcastle, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Northumbria in Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Christopher PriceInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Luke ValeHealth Economics Group Newcastle, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services.

methodsA systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines.

resultsA total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation.

conclusionsConfounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.

Indexed as

ChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFaculty, MedicalHealth Care CostsHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumanscentralisationhealthcareHEALTH ECONOMICSreview

Identifiers

PMID27154484
PMCPMC4861117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.