Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27411042›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Cost of Illness of Multiple Sclerosis - A Systematic Review.

Olivia Ernstsson, Hanna Gyllensten, Kristina Alexanderson, Petter Tinghög, Emilie Friberg, Anders Norlund

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05080270 (Feasibility Study of Tolerogenic Fibroblasts in Patients With Refractory Multiple Sclerosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 83 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05080270 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility Study of Tolerogenic Fibroblasts in Patients With Refractory Multiple Sclerosis

TypeinterventionalSponsorFibroBiologicsRan2020 to 2021Enrolled5ConditionsMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting, Multiple SclerosisArmsTolerogenic Fibroblasts
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Olivia ErnstssonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna GyllenstenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristina AlexandersonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Petter TinghögDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Emilie FribergDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders NorlundDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost-of-illness (COI) studies of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) are vital components for describing the economic burden of MS, and are frequently used in model studies of interventions of MS. We conducted a systematic review of studies estimating the COI of MS, to compare costs between studies and examine cost drivers, emphasizing generalizability and methodological choices. MATERIAL AND

methodA literature search on studies published in English on COI of MS was performed in PubMed for the period January 1969 to January 2014, resulting in 1,326 publications. A mapping of studies using a bottom-up approach or top-down approach, respectively, was conducted for the 48 studies assessed as relevant. In a second analysis, the cost estimates were compared between the 29 studies that used a societal perspective on costs, human capital approach for indirect costs, presenting number of patients included, time-period studied, and year of price level used.

resultsThe mapping showed that bottom-up studies and prevalence approaches were most common. The cost ratios between different severity levels within studies were relatively stable, to the ratio of 1 to 2 to 3 for disability level categories. Drugs were the main cost drivers for MS-patients with low disease severity, representing 29% to 82% of all costs in this patient group, while the main cost components for groups with more advanced MS symptoms were production losses due to MS and informal care, together representing 17% to 67% of costs in those groups.

conclusionThe bottom-up method and prevalence approach dominated in studies of COI of MS. Our findings show that there are difficulties in comparing absolute costs across studies, nevertheless, the relative costs expressed as cost ratios, comparing different severity levels, showed higher resemblance. Costs of drugs were main cost drivers for less severe MS and informal care and production losses for the most severe MS.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessHumansMultiple Sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID27411042
PMCPMC4943600
OpenAlexW2474429704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.