Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28918448›Full record

SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2017

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of screening interventions for assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women considering combined oral contraceptives.

Zanfina Ademi, C Simone Sutherland, Joris Van Stiphout, Jöelle Michaud, Goranka Tanackovic, Matthias Schwenkglenks

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review.International journal of public health · 2019
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zanfina AdemiInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. zanfina.ademi@unibas.ch.
C Simone SutherlandInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Joris Van StiphoutInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jöelle MichaudGene Predictis SA, EPFL Innovation Park, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Goranka TanackovicGene Predictis SA, EPFL Innovation Park, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Matthias SchwenkglenksInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) by women increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can have a major impact on an individuals' quality of life. VTE is also associated with an increase in healthcare costs. Our aim was to systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) considering any screening for risk of VTE in women using COCs. The quality of reporting in each study was assessed, a summary of results was prepared, and the key drivers of cost effectiveness in each of the eligible CEAs were identified. A search strategy using MeSH terms was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) database including the Economic Evaluation Database from the UK National Health Service, and Cochrane reviews. Two reviewers independently screened and determined the final articles, and a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards was used to assess the quality of reporting in terms of perspective, effectiveness measures, model structure, cost, time-horizon and discounting. Four publications (three from Europe, one from the United States) were eligible for inclusion in the review. According to current criteria, relevant elements were sometimes not captured and the sources of epidemiological and effectiveness data used in the CEAs were of limited quality. The studies varied in terms of type of costs assessed, country settings, model assumptions and uncertainty around input parameters. Key drivers of CEAs were sensitivity and specificity of the test, incidence rate of VTE, relative risk of prophylaxis, and costs of the test. The reviewed studies were too dissimilar to draw a firm conclusion on cost-effectiveness analysis about universal and selective screening in high-risk groups. The new emerging diagnostic tools for identifying women at risk of developing VTE, that are more predictive and less costly, highlight the need for more studies that apply the latest evidence and utilize robust methods for cost-effectiveness analysis. This information is required to improve decision making for this pertinent issue within personalized medicine.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisContraceptives, Oral, CombinedFemaleHumansPrecision MedicineRisk AssessmentVenous ThromboembolismContraceptives, Oral, CombinedCombined oral contraceptivesCost-effectivenessEconomicsGenetic screeningVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID28918448
OpenAlexW2755622095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.