Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30289926›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Conceptual model for the health technology assessment of current and novel interventions in rheumatoid arthritis.

Evo Alemao, Maiwenn J Al, Annelies A Boonen, Matthew D Stevenson, Suzanne M M Verstappen, Kaleb Michaud, Michael E Weinblatt, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Evo AlemaoWorldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Lawrence, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9292-9420
Maiwenn J AlErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Annelies A BoonenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Matthew D StevensonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Suzanne M M VerstappenArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Kaleb MichaudDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, New England, United States of America.
Michael E WeinblattDivision of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Maureen P M H Rutten-van MölkenErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate current approaches to economic modeling in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and propose a new conceptual model for evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of RA interventions. We followed recommendations from the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research-Society of Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM) Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. The process involved scoping the decision problem by a working group and drafting a preliminary cost-effectiveness model framework. A systematic literature review (SLR) of existing decision-analytic models was performed and analysis of an RA registry was conducted to inform the structure of the draft conceptual model. Finally, an expert panel was convened to seek input on the draft conceptual model. The proposed conceptual model consists of three separate modules: 1) patient characteristic module, 2) treatment module, and 3) outcome module. Consistent with the scope, the conceptual model proposed six changes to current economic models in RA. These changes proposed are to: 1) use composite measures of disease activity to evaluate treatment response as well as disease progression (at least two measures should be considered, one as the base case and one as a sensitivity analysis); 2) conduct utility mapping based on disease activity measures; 3) incorporate subgroups based on guideline-recommended prognostic factors; 4) integrate realistic treatment patterns based on clinical practice/registry datasets; 5) assimilate outcomes that are not joint related (extra-articular outcomes); and 6) assess mortality based on disease activity. We proposed a conceptual model that incorporates the current understanding of clinical and real-world evidence in RA, as well as of existing modeling assumptions. The proposed model framework was reviewed with experts and could serve as a foundation for developing future cost-effectiveness models in RA.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicArthritis, RheumatoidCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID30289926
PMCPMC6173427

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.