ArticlePloS one2017
Aerobic exercise for vasomotor menopausal symptoms: A cost-utility analysis based on the Active Women trial.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A head-to-head evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy and costs of trio versus singleton exome sequencing analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost-utility of two exercise interventions relative to a control group for vasomotor menopausal symptoms.
designEconomic evaluation taking a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and a societal perspective.
settingPrimary care. POPULATION: Peri- and postmenopausal women who have not used hormone therapy in the past 3 months and experience ≥ 5 episodes of vasomotor symptoms daily.
methodsAn individual and a social support-based exercise intervention were evaluated. The former (Exercise-DVD), aimed to prompt exercise with purpose-designed DVD and written materials, whereas the latter (Exercise-Social support) with community exercise social support groups. Costs and outcomes associated with these interventions were compared to those of a control group, who could only have an exercise consultation. An incremental cost-utility analysis was undertaken using bootstrapping to account for the uncertainty around cost-effectiveness point-estimates.
main outcome measureCost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
resultsData for 261 women were available for analysis. Exercise-DVD was the most expensive and least effective intervention. Exercise-Social support was £52 (CIs: £18 to £86) and £18 (CIs: -£68 to £105) more expensive per woman than the control group at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and led to 0.006 (CIs: -0.002 to 0.014) and 0.013 (CIs: -0.01 to 0.036) more QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8,940 and £1,413 per QALY gained respectively. Exercise-Social support had 80%-90% probability of being cost-effective in the UK context. A societal perspective of analysis and a complete-case analysis led to similar findings.
conclusionsExercise-Social support resulted in a small gain in health-related quality of life at a marginal additional cost in a context where broader wellbeing and long-term gains associated with exercise and social participation were not captured. Community exercise social support groups are very likely to be cost-effective in the management of vasomotor menopausal symptoms.
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.