Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747536›Full record

ArticleRheumatology and therapy2015

Consensus Decision Models for Biologics in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Working Party.

Jason Madan, Tony Ades, Pelham Barton, Laura Bojke, Ernest Choy, Philip Helliwell, Paresh Jobanputra, Ken Stein, Andrew Stevens, Jonathan Tosh and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Mapping between HAQ-DI and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese patient population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Jason MadanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. j.j.madan@warwick.ac.uk.
Tony AdesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Pelham BartonSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Laura BojkeCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Ernest ChoyCardiff Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Philip HelliwellLeeds and St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, UK.
Paresh JobanputraQueen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, UK.
Ken SteinPeninsular Technology Assessment Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Andrew StevensSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jonathan ToshSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Suzanne VerstappenArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Allan WailooSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBCardiff University · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBSt. Luke's Hospital · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBiologic therapies are efficacious but costly. A number of health economic models have been developed to determine the most cost-effective way of using them in the treatment pathway. These models have produced conflicting results, driven by differences in assumptions, model structure, and data, which undermine the credibility of funding decisions based on modeling studies. A Consensus Working Party met to discuss recommendations and approaches for future models of biologic therapies.

methodsOur working party consisted of clinical specialists, modelers, and policy makers. Two 1-day meetings were held for members to arrive at consensus positions on model structure, assumptions, and appropriate data sources. These views were guided by clinical aspects of rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis and the principles of evidence-based medicine. Where opinions differed, we sought to identify a research agenda that would generate the evidence needed to reach consensus.

resultsWe gained consensus in four areas of model development: initial response to treatment; long-term disease progression; lifetime costs and benefits; and model structure. Consensus was also achieved on some key parameters such as choices of outcome measures, methods for extrapolation beyond trial data, and treatment switching. A research agenda to support further consensus was also identified.

conclusionConsensus guidance that fully reflects current evidence and clinical understanding was gained successfully. In addition, research needs have been identified. Such guidance can be updated as evidence develops and policy questions change and need not be prescriptive as long as deviations from consensus are clearly explained and justified.

fundingArthritis Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research.

Indexed as

ArthritisBiologicsEconomic models

Identifiers

PMID27747536
PMCPMC4883267
OpenAlexW2180462344

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.