ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020
Cost-Effectiveness of Real-World Administration of Concomitant
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of integrative oncology for sustainable and patient-centred cancer care: a systematic review in the context of the WHO global traditional medicine strategy 2025-2034.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic analysis of mistletoe prescriptions in clinical studies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Economic Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: a Literature Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Mistletoe extract in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: Health-related quality of life in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (MISTRAL).Palliative medicine · 2026Trial
- Review
- Review
- Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Observational
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
backgroundFor patients receiving add-on
methodsAn observational study was conducted using data from the Network Oncology clinical registry. Patients included had stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis and received
results88 patients (
conclusionBased on this CEA analysis, from the hospital's point of view, the costs per mean month of OS and per mean hospital stay were lower for patients under combinational standard of care plus VA compared to patients receiving standard of care alone for the treatment of stage IV pancreatic cancer. Further prospective cost-effectiveness studies are mandatory to reevaluate our findings.
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.