Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28060453›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2017

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review.

Marrit L Berg, Kei Long Cheung, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Silvia Evers, Reina J A de Kinderen, Puttarin Kulchaitanaroaj, Subhash Pokhrel

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in People With Mental Disorders: A Dynamic Decision Analytical Model.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Marrit L BergDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kei Long CheungDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Silvia EversDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Reina J A de KinderenDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Puttarin KulchaitanaroajHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
Subhash PokhrelHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context.

methodsA systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded.

findingsAmong the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method.

conclusionAll existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSmoking CessationEconomic evaluationmodellingsmokingsystematic reviewtobaccotransferability

Identifiers

PMID28060453
PMCPMC5434798

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.