Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28975009›Full record

ReviewAmerican health & drug benefits2017

Value Frameworks in Oncology: Comparative Analysis and Implications to the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Mark Slomiany, Priya Madhavan, Michael Kuehn, Sasha Richardson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American health & drug benefits, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The value of anticancer drugs - a regulatory view.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Mark SlomianyConsultant, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY.
Priya MadhavanSenior Analyst, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY.
Michael KuehnVice President, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY.
Sasha RichardsonExecutive Vice President, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the cost of oncology care continues to rise, composite value models that variably capture the diverse concerns of patients, physicians, payers, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry have begun to take shape.

objectivesTo review the capabilities and limitations of 5 of the most notable value frameworks in oncology that have emerged in recent years and to compare their relative value and application among the intended stakeholders.

methodsWe compared the methodology of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework (version 2.0), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Value Assessment Framework, and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, using a side-by-side comparative approach in terms of the input, scoring methodology, and output of each framework. In addition, we gleaned stakeholder insights about these frameworks and their potential real-world applications through dialogues with physicians and payers, as well as through secondary research and an aggregate analysis of previously published survey results.

resultsThe analysis identified several framework-specific themes in their respective focus on clinical trial elements, breadth of evidence, evidence weighting, scoring methodology, and value to stakeholders. Our dialogues with physicians and our aggregate analysis of previous surveys revealed a varying level of awareness of, and use of, each of the value frameworks in clinical practice. For example, although the ASCO Value Framework appears nascent in clinical practice, physicians believe that the frameworks will be more useful in practice in the future as they become more established and as their outputs are more widely accepted.

conclusionsAlong with patients and payers, who bear the burden of treatment costs, physicians and policymakers have waded into the discussion of defining value in oncology care, as well as pharmaceutical companies that seek to understand the impact of these value frameworks on each stakeholder, as they model the value and financial threshold of innovative, high-cost drugs.

Indexed as

aggregate analysisclinical trialshealthcare stakeholderoncology drug costsvalue framework

Identifiers

PMID28975009
PMCPMC5620505

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.