ArticlePharmacoEconomics2017
Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced access to healthcare utilization data through medical record review: Lessons learned from a community-based, multi-site project.Research in nursing & health · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Article
- Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
- An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Review
- Resource use and cost of annual health checks in primary care for people with intellectual disabilities.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2019Article
- Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Contributing to Global Health: Development of a Consensus-Based Whole Systems Research Strategy for Anthroposophic Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Article
- Smaller clinical trials for decision making; a case study to show p-values are costly.F1000Research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge observational datasets such as Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) provide opportunities to conduct clinical studies and economic evaluations with efficient designs.
objectivesOur objectives were to report the economic evaluation methodology for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a UK NHS-delivered public health intervention for children with asthma that was evaluated using CPRD and describe the impact of this methodology on results.
methodsCPRD identified eligible patients using predefined asthma diagnostic codes and captured 1-year pre- and post-intervention healthcare contacts (August 2012 to July 2014). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 4 months post-intervention were estimated by assigning utility values to exacerbation-related contacts; a systematic review identified these utility values because preference-based outcome measures were not collected. Bootstrapped costs were evaluated 12 months post-intervention, both with 1-year regression-based baseline adjustment (BA) and without BA (observed).
resultsOf 12,179 patients recruited, 8190 (intervention 3641; control 4549) were evaluated in the primary analysis, which included patients who received the protocol-defined intervention and for whom CPRD data were available. The intervention's per-patient incremental QALY loss was 0.00017 (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals [BCa 95% CI] -0.00051 to 0.00018) and cost savings were £14.74 (observed; BCa 95% CI -75.86 to 45.19) or £36.07 (BA; BCa 95% CI -77.11 to 9.67), respectively. The probability of cost savings was much higher when accounting for BA versus observed costs due to baseline cost differences between trial arms (96.3 vs. 67.3%, respectively).
conclusionEconomic evaluations using data from a large observational database without any primary data collection is feasible, informative and potentially efficient. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN03000938.
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.