ArticlePharmacoEconomics2016
Impact on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of Using Alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov Model for Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost Effectiveness of Rectal Culture-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: The Results from a Randomized, Nonblinded, Multicenter Trial.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Article
- Article
- Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
- Estimating Informal Caregiving Time from Patient EQ-5D Data: The Informal CARE Effect (iCARE) Tool.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Response to 'Comment on "Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?"'.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Article
- Comment on "Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?"PharmacoEconomics · 2017Article
- Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?PharmacoEconomics · 2017Article
- The External Validity of Mapping MSIS-29 on EQ-5D Among Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis in Sweden.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study responds to a request in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance to assess the impact of using alternative sources of utility values, applied to multiple sclerosis (MS).
methodsIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using utility values based on UK and Dutch values of EQ-5D, two UK mappings and one Dutch mapping of EQ-5D and two condition-specific instruments: the UK eight-dimensional Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-8D) and the Dutch Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Preference-Based Measure (MSIS-PBM). Deterministic and Monte-Carlo simulation-based ICERs were estimated for glatiramer acetate versus symptom management using a lifetime Markov model.
resultsFor both UK and Dutch perspectives, mapped and condition-specific utility values expressed significantly higher quality of life for the worst health state of the model than did EQ-5D. The ICER of glatiramer acetate with EQ-5D was US$182,291 for The Netherlands and US$153,476 for the UK. Ratios for mapped and condition-specific utilities were between 20 and 60 % higher.
conclusionThe overestimation of quality of life of patients with MS by mapped EQ-5D or condition-specific utility values, relative to observed EQ-5D, increases the ICER substantially in a lifetime Markov model.
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.