SynthesisBMJ open2017
Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluations Among the Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Overall Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Economical Evaluation of Cancer Types Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Compared to 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- Broadening the application of health technology assessment in the Netherlands: a worthwhile destination but not an easy ride?Health economics, policy, and law · 2021Article
- Resource Use and Costs Associated to the Initial Phase of Treatment for Patients with Colorectal Cancer Receiving Post-Surgery Chemotherapy: A Cost Analysis from a Healthcare Perspective.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Gambling Research and Funding Biases.Journal of gambling studies · 2019Article
- Assessing the reporting quality in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for postherpetic neuralgia using the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Lack of correlation between the costs of anticancer drugs and clinical benefits in Japan.Cancer science · 2018Article
- Quantitative cost‑effectiveness index of cancer treatments.Medicine internationalArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a first-time analysis of the cost-effectiveness (CE) literature on chemotherapies, of all types, in cancer, in terms of trends and change over time, including the influence of industry funding.
designSystematic review.
settingA wide range of cancer-related research settings within healthcare, including health systems, hospitals and medical centres.
participantsAll literature comparative CE research of drug-based cancer therapies in the period 1986 to 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes are the literature trends in relation to journal subject category, authorship, research design, data sources, funds and consultation involvement. An additional outcome measure is the association between industry funding and study outcomes. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and the χ
resultsTotal 574 publications were analysed. The drug-related CE literature expands over time, with increased publishing in the healthcare sciences and services journal subject category (p<0.001). The retrospective data collection in studies increased over time (p<0.001). The usage of prospective data, however, has been decreasing (p<0.001) in relation to randomised clinical trials (RCTs), but is unchanging for non-RCT studies. The industry-sponsored CE studies have especially been increasing (p<0.001), in contrast to those sponsored by other sources. While paid consultation involvement grew throughout the years, the declaration of funding for this is relatively limited. Importantly, there is evidence that industry funding is associated with favourable result to the sponsor (p<0.001).
conclusionsThis analysis demonstrates clear trends in how the CE cancer research is presented to the practicing community, including in relation to journals, study designs, authorship and consultation, together with increased financial sponsorship by pharmaceutical industries, which may be more influencing study outcomes than other funding sources.
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.