Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30131318›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Predicting Therapy Success and Costs for Personalized Treatment Recommendations Using Baseline Characteristics: Data-Driven Analysis.

Vincent Bremer, Dennis Becker, Spyros Kolovos, Burkhardt Funk, Ward van Breda, Mark Hoogendoorn, Heleen Riper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Economic evaluations of big data analytics for clinical decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Vincent Bremer *Institute of Information Systems, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0304-5859
Dennis Becker *Institute of Information Systems, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1437-6127
Spyros Kolovos *Department of Clinical, Neuro- & Developmental Psychology, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3201-1743
Burkhardt Funk *Institute of Information Systems, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5855-2666
Ward van Breda *Department of Computer Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7358-4444
Mark Hoogendoorn *Department of Computer Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3356-3574
Heleen Riper *Department of Clinical, Neuro- & Developmental Psychology, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8144-8901

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferent treatment alternatives exist for psychological disorders. Both clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment are crucial aspects for policy makers, therapists, and patients and thus play major roles for healthcare decision-making. At the start of an intervention, it is often not clear which specific individuals benefit most from a particular intervention alternative or how costs will be distributed on an individual patient level.

objectiveThis study aimed at predicting the individual outcome and costs for patients before the start of an internet-based intervention. Based on these predictions, individualized treatment recommendations can be provided. Thus, we expand the discussion of personalized treatment recommendation.

methodsOutcomes and costs were predicted based on baseline data of 350 patients from a two-arm randomized controlled trial that compared treatment as usual and blended therapy for depressive disorders. For this purpose, we evaluated various machine learning techniques, compared the predictive accuracy of these techniques, and revealed features that contributed most to the prediction performance. We then combined these predictions and utilized an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in order to derive individual treatment recommendations before the start of treatment.

resultsPredicting clinical outcomes and costs is a challenging task that comes with high uncertainty when only utilizing baseline information. However, we were able to generate predictions that were more accurate than a predefined reference measure in the shape of mean outcome and cost values. Questionnaires that include anxiety or depression items and questions regarding the mobility of individuals and their energy levels contributed to the prediction performance. We then described how patients can be individually allocated to the most appropriate treatment type. For an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of 25,000 €/quality-adjusted life year, we demonstrated that our recommendations would have led to slightly worse outcomes (1.98%), but with decreased cost (5.42%).

conclusionsOur results indicate that it was feasible to provide personalized treatment recommendations at baseline and thus allocate patients to the most beneficial treatment type. This could potentially lead to improved decision-making, better outcomes for individuals, and reduced health care costs.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMachine LearningMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcomecost effectivenessmachine learningmental healthtreatment recommendation

Identifiers

PMID30131318
PMCPMC6123535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.