ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2017
A cost-utility analysis of dabigatran, enoxaparin, and usual care for venous thromboprophylaxis after hip or knee replacement surgery in Thailand.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Hospitalization in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyze the cost-utility of oral dabigatran etexilate, enoxaparin sodium injection, and no intervention for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement (THR/TKR) surgery among Thai patients. A cost-utility analysis using a decision tree model was conducted using societal and healthcare payers' perspectives to simulate relevant costs and health outcomes covering a 3-month time horizon. Costs were adjusted to year 2014. The willingness-to-pay threshold of THB 160,000 (USD 4926) was used. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Compared with no VTE prophylaxis, dabigatran and enoxaparin after THR and TKR surgery incurred higher costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs). However, their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were high above the willingness to pay. Compared with enoxaparin, dabigatran for THR/TKR lowered VTE complications but increased bleeding cases; dabigatran was cost-saving by reducing the costs [by THB 3809.96 (USD 117.30) for THR] and producing more QALYs gained (by 0.00013 for THR). Dabigatran (vs. enoxaparin) had a 98 % likelihood of being cost effective. Dabigatran is cost-saving compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after THR or TKR under the Thai context. However, both medications are not cost-effective compared to no thromboprophylaxis.
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.