Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31186068›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Immunotherapy with check-point inhibitors (CPI) in adult malignancies: a protocol for the systematic review of the quality of economic analyses.

Ying Wang, Pierre Camateros, Denise Smith, David Dawe, Peter Ellis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ying WangBC Cancer Vancouver, 600 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4E6, Canada. ying.wang@alumni.ubc.ca.
Pierre CamaterosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Community Internal Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel Street, 10th Floor, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Denise SmithDepartment of Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, 675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E 0V9, Canada.
David DaweFaculty of Health Sciences, Health Science Library, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Peter EllisDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Centre, 3rd floor, 699 Concession Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8V 5C2, Canada.
CancerCare Manitoba · CAJuravinski Cancer Centre · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmuno-oncology, and in particular, check-point inhibitors (CPIs), have led to a paradigm shift in the field of cancer care. The cost of new drug development is high, and many novel agents in oncology are significantly more expensive than older agents. Therefore, healthcare funders have factored measures of cost-effectiveness into decisions concerning drug reimbursement and incorporation of new agents into treatment algorithms. The methodology of cost-effectiveness evaluations, however, is less rigorously applied than those evaluating clinical efficacy and safety data. Thus, in spite of many regulatory bodies having approved CPIs based on existing economic analyses, to date, there has not been a systematic evaluation of the quality of health economic studies conducted on this new class of agents. Therefore, we propose to systematically review the methodologic and reporting quality of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies assessing CPIs to alternate established therapies, other immuno-oncology regimens, or placebo, in adults with malignancies. METHODS/

designThe systematic review will include all published economic evaluations of CPIs compared with at least one other treatment in adult patients with solid or hematologic malignancies. A search will be performed to identify relevant studies in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and the NIHR-HTA database. The titles and abstracts of all identified studies will be independently reviewed by two reviewers, who will then assess the full text of all articles deemed to meet eligibility criteria. Assessed articles will be screened for compliance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) criteria. The association, with CHEERS criteria, of the journal impact factor, publication year, funding source, tumor site, trial or model-based study, and CPIs studied, will then be assessed. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will aim to provide an overview of the quality of economic analyses evaluating CPIs for the treatment of malignancies in adult patients. Any systemic or recurrent deficiencies in methodological or reporting quality will be described and used to inform recommendations for improved reporting of economic analyses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review will not be registered with PROSPERO, it does not meet the eligibility criterion of addressing an outcome of the direct patient or clinical relevance.

Indexed as

AdultAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNeoplasmsSystematic Reviews as TopicAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCancerCheck-point inhibitorCHEERS criteriaCost-effectivenessEconomic analysisImmune-oncologyImmuno-therapyNeoplasmProtocolQualityReporting quality

Identifiers

PMID31186068
PMCPMC6560862
OpenAlexW2949104201

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.