ReviewValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2018
Productivity Benefits of Medical Care: Evidence from US-Based Randomized Clinical Trials.
Review in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.Forum for health economics & policy · 2024Article
- Is the price right? Paying for value today to get more value tomorrow.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Underestimating the Value of an Intervention: The Case for Including Productivity in Value Assessments and Formulary Design.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOne of the key recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine is to take a societal perspective when evaluating new technologies-including measuring the productivity benefits of new treatments. Yet relatively little is known about the impact that new treatments have on labor productivity.
objectivesTo examine the relationship between new drug treatments and gains in labor productivity across conditions in the United States and to evaluate which randomized clinical trials (RCTs) collected labor productivity data.
methodsWe collected data on US-based RCTs with work-ability surveys from searches of Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials, and ClinicalTrails.gov. Combining RCT data with survey data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we assessed productivity changes from new drug treatments.
resultsDuring the last decade, some disease conditions have seen treatments that improve ability to work by as much as 60%. The annual increase in productivity gains attributable to new drug treatments was modest 1.1% (P = 0.53). Of the 5092 RCTs reviewed, ability-to-work measures were collected in 2% of trials. Work productivity surveys were more likely among prevalent medical conditions that affected individuals who worked, earned higher wages, and experienced larger reductions in hours worked as a consequence of disease diagnosis.
conclusionsFrom our data, we estimated that drug innovation increased productivity by 4.8 million work days per year and $221 billion in wages per year. These labor-sector benefits should be taken into account when assessing the socially optimal cost for new drug innovation.
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.