Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32144726›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2020

A Systematic Review of Economic Models Across the Entire Schizophrenia Pathway.

Huajie Jin, Paul Tappenden, Stewart Robinson, Evanthia Achilla, James H MacCabe, David Aceituno, Sarah Byford

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis: a cost-effectiveness study using the EPiSODe model.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Huajie JinKing's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Box 024, The David Goldberg Centre, London, SE5 8AF, UK. huajie.jin@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3872-3998
Paul TappendenHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6612-2332
Stewart RobinsonSchool of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6016-0167
Evanthia AchillaIQVIA, 79 Anson Road, #19-01, Singapore, 079906, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7402-2769
James H MacCabeDepartment of Psychosis Studies, PO63, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6754-1018
David AceitunoKing's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Box 024, The David Goldberg Centre, London, SE5 8AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2967-5816
Sarah ByfordKing's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Box 024, The David Goldberg Centre, London, SE5 8AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7084-1495
King's College London · GBLoughborough University · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L011794/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchizophrenia is associated with a high economic burden. Economic models can help to inform resource allocation decisions to maximise benefits to patients.

objectivesThis systematic review aims to assess the availability, quality and consistency of conclusions of health economic models evaluating the cost effectiveness of interventions for schizophrenia.

methodsAn electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of interventions for schizophrenia published between 2005 and 2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Model characteristics and conclusions were descriptively summarised.

resultsSeventy-three models met inclusion criteria. Seventy-eight percent of existing models assessed antipsychotics; however, due to inconsistent conclusions reported by different studies, no antipsychotic can be considered clearly cost effective compared with the others. A very limited number of models suggest that the following non-pharmacological interventions might be cost effective: psychosocial interventions, stratified tests, employment intervention and intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care. The quality of included models is generally low due to use of a short time horizon, omission of adverse events of interventions, poor data quality and potential conflicts of interest.

conclusionsThis review highlights a lack of models for non-pharmacological interventions, and limitations of the existing models, including low quality and inconsistency in conclusions. Recommendations on future modelling approaches for schizophrenia are provided.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAntipsychotic AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessHumansSchizophreniaAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID32144726
OpenAlexW3009083187

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.