Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134471›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2020

A Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Venous Leg Ulcers.

Ashley Layer, Emma McManus, N J Levell

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley LayerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Emma McManusHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. Emma.mcmanus@uea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3442-8721
N J LevellDermatology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UY, UK.
University of East Anglia · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review was to identify, and assess the quality of, published model-based economic evaluations relating to treatments for patients with venous leg ulcers to help inform future decision-analytic models in this clinical area.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed on six electronic databases, from database inception until 21 May 2018. Search results were screened against predefined criteria by two independent reviewers. Data was then extracted from the included studies using a standardised form, whilst the decision-analytic model-specific Philips Checklist was used to assess quality and to inform model critique.

resultsA total of 23 models were identified, 12 studies used a Markov modelling approach, five used decision trees and six studies did not detail the model type. Studies were predominantly from the National Health Service (NHS)/payer perspective, with only two taking a societal perspective. Interventions were wide ranging, but dressing technologies (11/23) were most common. The intervention studied was found to be dominant in 22/23 studies. The reporting quality of papers was mostly low, with evidence behind model structures, time horizons and data selection consistently underreported across the included papers.

conclusionsThis review has identified a sizeable literature of model-based economic evaluations, evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers. However, the methods used to conduct such studies were generally poorly reported. In particular, the reporting of evidence surrounding the model structure, justification of the time horizon used and the rationale for selecting data inputs should be focused on in any future models developed.

Identifiers

PMID31134471
PMCPMC7248160
OpenAlexW2946487155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.