SynthesisBMC health services research2017
Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness and implementation challenges of mobile low-dose computed tomography units for early lung cancer detection: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Advances in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Insights and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Impacts of accreditation on the performance of primary health care centres: A systematic review.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of non-communicable disease prevention in Southeast Asia: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Identifying unmet information needs of advanced cancer patients in Iran: An in-depth qualitative study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- Barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening uptake: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- A study of cardiopulmonary resuscitation literacy among the personnel of universities of medical sciences based in Kermanshah and Khuzestan provinces based on the latest 2015 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Circ_0044516 Regulates miR-136/MAT2A Pathway to Facilitate Lung Cancer Development.Journal of immunology research · 2021Article
- Andrographolide Against Lung Cancer-New Pharmacological Insights Based on High-Throughput Metabolomics Analysis Combined with Network Pharmacology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Teaching adults how to prevent COVID-19 infection by health workers: The application of intervention mapping approach.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 17 promotes cisplatin resistance via PI3K/AKT activation in non-small cell lung cancer.Oncology letters · 2020Article
- Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A quality appraisal.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2020Review
- Investigating high blood pressure, type-2 diabetes, dislipidemia, and body mass index to determine the health status of people over 30 years.Journal of education and health promotion · 2020Article
- Cannabidiol-from Plant to Human Body: A Promising Bioactive Molecule with Multi-Target Effects in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Sensors for detecting pulmonary diseases from exhaled breath.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods.
methodsIn this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: "lung cancer", "lung oncology", "lung Carcinoma", "lung neoplasm", "lung tumors", "cost- effectiveness", "systematic review" and "Meta-analysis". The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.
resultsOverall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11.
conclusionsTargeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.
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.