SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2020
Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Migraine: An Assessment of the Generalizability Following a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Toward P6 Medicine: Recommendations for Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Internal Medicine.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Applications to augment patient care for Internal Medicine specialists: a position paper from the EFIM working group on telemedicine, innovative technologies & digital health.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Intra- and Extra-Hospitalization Monitoring of Vital Signs-Two Sides of the Same Coin: Perspectives from LIMS and Greenline-HT Study Operators.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAll health economics reviews on chronic and episodic migraine published to date underline the heterogeneity of results. Currently, the need for the generalizability of economic evaluations across different jurisdictions is considered a key issue to avoid unnecessary overlaps and to minimize the time to reimbursement decisions.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to review the economic evaluations on the prophylaxis and treatments for migraine published in the previous 10 years (since 2009) and to perform a critical assessment of their generalizability.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and EconLit databases. Articles underwent a three-stage selection process. To assess the level of generalizability, we used the checklist implemented by Augustovski et al. Studies were classified as: (1) generalizable; (2) transferable; and (3) context specific.
resultsIn total, 227 articles were identified after running the search string and 11 studies were included in our review. Overall, none of the studies was judged as generalizable and three were judged transferable according to the established criteria.
conclusionsOur review suggests that no evidence on the economic value of either acute or prophylactic treatments against migraine is generalizable to different jurisdictions. However, the majority of studies reporting results about prophylactic treatments were found to be transferable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32107743What 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.