Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31500592›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2019

Endoscopic ultrasound staging in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancers: a systematic review of economic evidence.

Seow Tien Yeo, Nathan Bray, Hasan Haboubi, Zoe Hoare, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seow Tien YeoCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK. s.t.yeo@bangor.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7496-1742
Nathan BrayCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK.
Hasan HaboubiCancer Biomarkers Group, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Zoe HoareNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health and Social Care (NWORTH), Bangor University, Y Wern, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK.
Rhiannon Tudor EdwardsCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK.
Bangor University · GBSwansea University · GB

Funding

Tenovus PHD2009/P03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in staging gastro-oesophageal cancers (GOCs) has been widely studied. However, the economic evidence of EUS staging in the management of patients with GOCs is scarce. This review aimed to examine all economic evidence (not limited to randomised controlled trials) of the use of EUS staging in the management of GOCs patients, and to offer a review of economic evidence on the costs, benefits (in terms of GOCs patients' health-related quality of life), and economic implications of the use of EUS in staging GOCs patients.

methodsThe protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42016043700; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016043700 ). MEDLINE (ovid), EMBASE (ovid), The Cochrane Collaboration Register and Library (including the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (Core Collection) as well as reference lists were systematically searched for studies conducted between 1996 and 2018 (search update 28/04/2018). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed study quality, and extracted data. Study characteristics of the included articles, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, when available, were summarised narratively.

resultsOf the 197 articles retrieved, six studies met the inclusion criteria: three economic studies and three economic modelling studies. Of the three economic studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost analyses. Of the three economic modelling studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost-minimisation analyses. Both of the cost-effectiveness analyses reported that use of EUS as an additional staging technique provided, on average, more QALYs (0.0019-0.1969 more QALYs) and saved costs (by £1969-£3364 per patient, 2017 price year) compared to staging strategy without EUS. Of the six studies, only one included GOCs participants and the other five included oesophageal cancer participants.

conclusionsThe data available suggest use of EUS as a complementary staging technique to other staging techniques for GOCs appears to be cost saving and offers greater QALYs. Nevertheless, future studies are necessary because the economic evidence around this EUS staging intervention for GOCs is far from robust. More health economic research and good quality data are needed to judge the economic benefits of EUS staging for GOCs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043700 .

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedEndosonographyEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicQuality-Adjusted Life YearsStomach NeoplasmsCostsEconomic reviewEffectsEndoscopic ultrasoundEUS stagingGastro-oesophageal cancersQALYsStaging techniques

Identifiers

PMID31500592
PMCPMC6734454
OpenAlexW2971647388

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.