SynthesisRevista espanola de salud publica2018
[Social costs of diseases: How relevant are they for economic evaluations?]
Synthesis in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How relevant are social costs in economic evaluations? The case of Alzheimer's disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the field of the economic evaluation (EE), there is an open debate on the most appropriate perspective to apply. Despite the relevance of the topic, there are hardly any studies that have analyzed the practical consequences of applying the social perspective vs. health care funder. The aim of this study was performed a systematic review of the available evidence to analyze whether the inclusion/exclusion of informal care and/or loss of productivity influence the results and conclusions of economic evaluations.
methodsA systematic review of the literature was carried out using PubMed and Econlit databases, to determine the publications that contained EE on Alzheimer, Parkinson and Stroke. Inclusion criteria were: a) full EE of the diseases under study; b) from January 2006-July 2016; and c) in English or Spanish.
results6,292 references were identified, of which 245 publications meet the selection criteria and were analyzed. After the full-text analysis, 20 references were selected, of which 27 full EE were obtained (20 corresponding to Alzheimer, 1 to Parkinson and 6 to Stroke). In 20 EE (74.1%) the change of the perspective modifies the results, becoming dominant or increasing the saving of the resources by comparing the alternatives from the social perspective. In the remaining 7, the inclusion of social costs involves an increase in the costs of the intervention evaluated against its control. In a single EE, the conclusions vary when including social costs.
conclusionsThe inclusion of social costs can modify the results of EE but their impact on the conclusions is not relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30129567PMC11587231What 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.