Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32754857›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2020

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer.

Erik F Blom, Kevin Ten Haaf, Harry J de Koning

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Erik F BlomDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Internal Postal Address Na-2401, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. e.f.blom@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2016-5668
Kevin Ten HaafDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Internal Postal Address Na-2401, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Internal Postal Address Na-2401, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Lung Cancer Prevention and Control PoliciesU01CA199284 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, HOLFORD, THEODORE R · 2015 to 2019
$8.4M
NCI NIH HHS 1U01CA199284-01NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing appropriate health state utility values (HSUVs) is critical for economic evaluation of new lung cancer interventions, such as low-dose computed tomography screening and immunotherapy. Therefore, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of community- and choice-based HSUVs for lung cancer.

methodsOn 6 March 2017, we conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utility Database. The search was updated on 17 April 2019. Studies reporting mean or median lung cancer-specific HSUVs including a measure of variance were included and assessed for relevance and validity. Studies with high relevance (i.e. community- and choice-based) were further analysed. Mean HSUVs were pooled using random-effects models for all stages, stages I-II, and stages III-IV. For studies with a control group, we calculated the disutility due to lung cancer. A sensitivity analysis included only the methodologically most comparable studies (i.e. using the EQ-5D instrument and matching tariff). Subgroup analyses were conducted by time to death, histology, sex, age, treatment modality, treatment line, and progression status.

resultsWe identified and analysed 27 studies of high relevance. The pooled HSUV was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75) for all stages, 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) for stages I-II, and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) for stages III-IV (p = 0.02 vs. stage I-II). Heterogeneity was present in each pooled analysis (p < 0.01; I

conclusionsThe presented evidence supports the use of stage- and country-specific HSUVs. However, such HSUVs are unavailable for most countries. Therefore, our pooled HSUVs may provide the best available stage-specific HSUVs for most countries. For metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, adjusting for the decreased HSUVs in the last year of life may be considered, as may further stratification of HSUVs by treatment line or progression status. If required, HSUVs for other health states may be identified using our comprehensive breakdown of study characteristics.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAgedCanadaChinaGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSpainThailand

Identifiers

PMID32754857
PMCPMC7547043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.