Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31583605›Full record

SynthesisClinical drug investigation2019

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Daniel Gallacher, Peter Auguste, Pamela Royle, Hema Mistry, Xavier Armoiry

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trends in NICE technology appraisals of non-small cell lung cancer drugs over the last decade.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Daniel GallacherWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. d.gallacher@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-9384
Peter AugusteWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Pamela RoyleWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Hema MistryWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Xavier ArmoiryWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

University of Warwick RDF 2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously.

objectiveTo investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression.

methodsA systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists.

resultsThirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in.

conclusionsThere are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.

Indexed as

Anaplastic Lymphoma KinaseCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungErbB ReceptorsHumansLung NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesALK protein, humanAnaplastic Lymphoma KinaseEGFR protein, humanErbB Receptors

Identifiers

PMID31583605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.