Trial reportPalliative medicine2020
Economic evaluation of a combined screening and stepped-care treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Palliative medicine, 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.
- Economic evaluations in the palliative and end-of-life care settings: A systematic review of existing evidence, methods and quality.Palliative medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Stepped-care models for cancer symptom management: a systematic review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Handling Missing Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR): A Systematic Review and Practical Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of guideline-based stepped and collaborative care versus treatment as usual for patients with depression - a cluster-randomized trial.BMC psychiatry · 2020Trial
- To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- Effects and Satisfaction of Comfort Nursing plus Psychological Nursing in the Clinical Nursing of Neurology Patients: A Comparative Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychological distress is highly prevalent among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
aimsTo perform an economic evaluation of a combined screening and treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in comparison with usual care.
designSocietal costs were collected alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial for 48 weeks. A total of 349 participants were included.
settingParticipants were recruited from oncology departments at 16 participating hospitals in the Netherlands.
methodsOutcome measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated to show uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness estimates. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of results.
resultsBetween treatment arms, no significant differences were found in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference: -0.058; 95% confidence interval: -0.13 to 0.011), quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference: 0.042; 95% confidence interval: -0.015 to 0.099), and societal costs (mean difference: -1152; 95% confidence interval: -5058 to 2214). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.64 and 0.74 at willingness-to-pay values of €0 and €10,000 per point improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared to usual care for quality-adjusted life-years was 0.64 and 0.79 at willingness-to-pay values of €0 and €20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively.
conclusionThe intervention is dominant over usual care, primarily due to lower costs in the intervention group. However, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical effects and the uptake of the intervention was quite low. Therefore, widespread implementation cannot be recommended.
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.