Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880511›Full record

ReviewMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2022

Measuring the cost-effectiveness of treatments for people with multiple sclerosis: Beyond quality-adjusted life-years.

Annie Hawton, Elizabeth Goodwin, Kate Boddy, Jennifer Freeman, Sarah Thomas, Jeremy Chataway, Colin Green

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Validation of proxy-reported EQ-5D-Y-3L in younger children with spinal muscular atrophy: age-related differences in performance.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Measuring health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: comparing the acceptability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and MSIS-8D.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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.

Annie HawtonHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK/NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1336-5899
Elizabeth GoodwinHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Kate BoddyNIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Jennifer FreemanSchool of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Sarah ThomasFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Jeremy ChatawayQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK/National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Colin GreenHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK/Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is a familiar story. A promising multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment clears the three regulatory hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy, only to fall at the fourth: cost-effectiveness. This has led to concerns about the validity of the measures typically used to quantify treatment effects in cost-effectiveness analyses and in 2012, in the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence called for an improvement in the cost-effectiveness framework for assessing MS treatments. OBJECTIVE AND

methodsThis review describes what is meant by cost-effectiveness in health/social care funding decision-making, and usual practice for assessing treatment benefits.

resultsWe detail the use of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in resource allocation decisions, and set out limitations of this approach in the context of MS.

conclusionWe conclude by highlighting methodological and policy developments which should aid addressing these limitations.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited Kingdomcost-effectivenesscost-effectiveness analysishealth-related quality of lifeMultiple sclerosisquality-adjusted life-yearsquality of life

Identifiers

PMID32880511
PMCPMC8894952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.