ReviewStroke and vascular neurology2019
Understanding cost data collection tools to improve economic evaluations of health interventions.
Review in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The financial burden of diabetes-related foot disease in Australia: a systematic review.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Pooled it
- Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Micro-costing of genetic and genomic testing in oncology: a systematic review of laboratory resources and costs.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Investing in Infrastructure: A Mixed-Methods Cost Analysis of Implementation Strategies to Address Emerging Youth Drug Trends.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2026Article
- 50k4Life: A SMART study protocol to improve walking engagement in public school employees on the US-Mexico border.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- The IMPACT-FH Renewal Protocol: Evaluating FH Cascade Testing Implementation in Primary Care through a Pragmatic Trial, Economic Evaluation, and Mixed-Methods Sustainability Assessment.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Cost analysis of female breast cancer in Antigua and Barbuda: a prevalence based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Hospital-based health technology assessment of central dialysis fluid delivery system for hemodialysis patients.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Impact of a CKD Population Health Intervention on Healthcare Utilization and Costs.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2025Article
- Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Article
- Validation of the PECUNIA reference unit costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- The Economic Burden of Prostate Cancer in Antigua and Barbuda: A Prevalence-Based Cost-of-Illness Analysis from the Healthcare Provider Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Challenges and recommendations for collecting and quantifying implementation costs in practice: a qualitative interview study.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- The economic burden of obesity in 4 south-eastern European countries associated with obesity-related co-morbidities.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The Economic Impact of Obesity in Turkey: A Micro-Costing Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness ofGlobal health action · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessing micro- vs macro-costing approaches for treating appendicitis in children with appendicectomy or non-operatively.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micro-costing data collection tools often used in literature include standardized comprehensive templates, targeted questionnaires, activity logs, on-site administrative databases, and direct observation. These tools are not mutually exclusive and are often used in combination. Each tool has unique merits and limitations, and some may be more applicable than others under different circumstances. Proper application of micro-costing tools can produce quality cost estimates and enhance the usefulness of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions. A common method to derive both fixed and variable costs of an intervention involves collecting data from the bottom up for each resource consumed (micro-costing). We scanned economic evaluation literature published in 2008-2018 and identified micro-costing data collection tools used. We categorized the identified tools and discuss their practical applications in an example study of health interventions, including their potential strengths and weaknesses. Sound economic evaluations of health interventions provide valuable information for justifying resource allocation decisions, planning for implementation, and enhancing the sustainability of the interventions. However, the quality of intervention cost estimates is seldom addressed in the literature. Reliable cost data forms the foundation of economic evaluations, and without reliable estimates, evaluation results, such as cost-effectiveness measures, could be misleading. In this project, we identified data collection tools often used to obtain reliable data for estimating costs of interventions that prevent and manage chronic conditions and considered practical applications to promote their use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.