Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29153116›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017

Community Guide Cardiovascular Disease Economic Reviews: Tailoring Methods to Ensure Utility of Findings.

Sajal K Chattopadhyay, Verughese Jacob, Shawna L Mercer, David P Hopkins, Randy W Elder, Christopher D Jones, Community Preventive Services Task Force

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sajal K ChattopadhyayCommunity Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: skc9@cdc.gov.
Verughese JacobCommunity Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Shawna L MercerCommunity Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
David P HopkinsCommunity Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Randy W ElderOffice of Science Quality, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Christopher D JonesDivision for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury, and Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Community Preventive Services Task Force
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommended five interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention between 2012 and 2015. Systematic economic reviews of these interventions faced challenges that made it difficult to generate meaningful policy and programmatic conclusions. This paper describes the methods used to assess, synthesize, and evaluate the economic evidence to generate reliable and useful economic conclusions and address the comparability of economic findings across interventions. Specifically, steps were taken to assess completeness of data and identify the components and drivers of cost and benefit. Except for the intervention cost of self-measured blood pressure monitoring intervention, either alone or with patient support, all cost and benefit estimates were standardized as per patient per year. When possible, intermediate outcomes were converted to quality-adjusted life year. Differences within and between interventions were considered to generate economic conclusions and inform their comparability. The literature search period varied among interventions. This analysis was completed in 2016. Although team-based care, self-measured blood pressure monitoring with patient support, and self-measured blood pressure monitoring within team-based care were found to be cost effective, their cost-effectiveness estimates were not comparable because of differences in the intervention characteristics. Lack of enough data or incomplete information made it difficult to reach an overall economic finding for the other interventions. The Community Guide methods discussed here may help others conducting systematic economic reviews of public health interventions to respond to challenges with the synthesis of evidence and provide useful findings for public health decision makers.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCardiovascular DiseasesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Community Health WorkersDecision MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHealth ExpendituresHealth PolicyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProgram EvaluationQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29153116
PMCPMC6173312
OpenAlexW2769785905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.