Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30693473›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of dermatology2019

Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema.

T H Sach, E McManus, N J Levell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Trial
  6. Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

T H SachHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-8098-9220
E McManusHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-3442-8721
N J LevellDermatology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UY, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-3393-8305

Funding

Career Development Fellowship CDF-2014-07-006Department of Health CDF-2014-07-006National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAtopic eczema is an inflammatory skin condition, with a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. Increasing pressures on resources within the National Health Service increase the importance of having good economic evidence to inform their allocation.

objectivesTo educate dermatologists about economic methods with reference to currently available economic evidence on eczema.

methodsThe role of different types of economic evidence is illustrated by evidence found in a systematic literature search conducted across 12 online databases up to 22 May 2017. Primary empirical studies either reporting the results of a cost-of-illness study or evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed data abstraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Evidence tables of results were produced for narrative discussion. The reporting quality of economic evaluations was assessed.

resultsSeventy-eight studies (described in 80 papers) were deemed eligible. Thirty-three (42%) were judged to be economic evaluations, 12 (15%) cost analyses, six (8%) utility analyses, 26 (33%) cost-of-illness studies and one a feasibility study (1%). The calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, as well as barrier creams, had the most economic evidence available. Partially hydrolysed infant formula was the most commonly evaluated prevention.

conclusionsThe current level of economic evidence for interventions aimed at preventing and treating eczema is limited compared with that available for clinical outcomes, suggesting that greater collaboration between clinicians and economists might be beneficial.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessCost-Benefit AnalysisDermatitis, AtopicDermatologyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansQuality of LifeState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID30693473
PMCPMC6790711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.