ReviewWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2016
Value within otolaryngology: Assessment of the cost-utility analysis literature.
Review in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the characteristics and quality of cost utility analyses (CUA) related to otolaryngology within the CEA registry and to summarize their collective results.
methodsAll cost-utility analyses published between 1976 and 2011 contained in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry) were evaluated. Topics that fall within the care of an otolaryngologist were included in the review regardless of the presence of an otolaryngologist author. Potential associations between various study characteristics and CEA registry quality scores were evaluated using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient.
resultsSixty-one of 2913 (2.1%) total CUA publications screened were related to otolaryngology. Eighteen of 61 (29.5%) publications included an otolaryngologist as an author. Fourteen studies agreed on the cost effectiveness of at least unilateral cochlear implantation and six of seven (85.7%) studies demonstrated the cost effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Forty-six percent (28 of 61) of all manuscripts were published between 2008 and 2011. A more recent publication year was associated with a higher CEA registry quality score while the presence of an otolaryngologist author and journal impact factor had no significant correlation with the quality of the CUA.
conclusionBased on current evidence in the CEA registry, unilateral cochlear implantation for hearing loss and CPAP for OSA are both cost-effective therapeutic interventions. Although CUAs in otolaryngology have increased in quantity and improved in quality in more recent years, there is a relative lack of CUAs in otolaryngology in comparison to other subspecialties.
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.