Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28265822›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018

Systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of heart valve implantations.

Simone A Huygens, Johanna J M Takkenberg, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision analysis in cardiac surgery: a scoping review and methodological primer.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Cost Analysis in Shoulder Surgery: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2020
    Review
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Simone A HuygensDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.huygens@erasmusmc.nl.
Johanna J M TakkenbergDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maureen P M H Rutten-van MölkenDepartment of Health Policy and Management/Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Bayle Building, Campus Woudestein, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations generated by decision analytic models and to assess their methodological quality.

methodsA systematic review was performed including model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of heart valve implantations. Study and model characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed using the Philips checklist.

resultsFourteen decision-analytic models regarding the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations were identified. In most studies transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was cost-effective compared to standard treatment (ST) in inoperable or high-risk operable patients (ICER range 18,421-120,779 €) and in all studies surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was cost-effective compared to ST in operable patients (ICER range 14,108-40,944 €), but the results were not consistent on the cost-effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR in high-risk operable patients (ICER range: dominant to dominated by SAVR). Mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) had the lowest costs per success compared to mitral valve repair and biological MVR. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to good.

conclusionThis review showed that improvements can be made in the description and justification of methods and data sources, sensitivity analysis on extrapolation of results, subgroup analyses, consideration of methodological and structural uncertainty, and consistency (i.e. validity) of the models. There are several opportunities for future decision-analytic models of the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations: considering heart valve implantations in other valve positions besides the aortic valve, using a societal perspective, and developing patient-simulation models to investigate the impact of patient characteristics on outcomes.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAortic Valve StenosisCost-Benefit AnalysisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHeart ValvesHumansRisk AssessmentDecision-analytic modelEconomic evaluationHeart valve implantationsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28265822
PMCPMC5813051
OpenAlexW2593212308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.