Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33256733›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

A standardized framework to evaluate the quality of studies using TDABC in healthcare: the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium Consensus Statement.

Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges, Carisi Anne Polanczyk, Richard D Urman

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin in patients with haematological malignancies: time-driven activity-based costing.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Ana Paula Beck da Silva EtgesNational Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)- CNPq/Brazil (project: 465518/2014-1), Ramiro Barcelos 2350, Porto Alegre, Brazil. anabsetges@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6411-3480
Carisi Anne PolanczykNational Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)- CNPq/Brazil (project: 465518/2014-1), Ramiro Barcelos 2350, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Richard D Urman.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 465518/2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis Consensus Statement introduces a standardized framework, in a checklist format, to support future development and reporting of TDABC studies in healthcare, and to encourage their reproducibility. Additionally, it establishes the first formal networking of TDABC researchers through the creation of the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium.

methodsA consensus group of researchers reviewed the most relevant TDABC studies available in Medline and Scopus databases to identify the initial elements of the checklist. Using a Focus Group process, each element received a recommendation regarding where in the scientific article section it should be placed and whether the element was required or suggested. A questionnaire was circulated with expert researchers in the field to provide additional recommendations regarding the content of the checklist and the strength of recommendation for each included element.

resultsThe TDABC standardized framework includes 32 elements, provides recommendations where in the scientific article to include each element, and comments on the strength of each recommendation. All 32 elements were validated, with 21 elements classified as mandatory and 11 as suggested but not mandatory.

conclusionsThis is the first standardized framework to support the development and reporting of TDABC research in healthcare and to stablish a community of experts in TDABC methodology. We expect that it can contribute to scale strategies that would result in cost-savings outcomes and in value-oriented strategies that can be adopted in healthcare systems and institutions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareConsensusCost SavingsHumansReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsHealthcare costsMicrocostingTDABCTime-driven activity based costingValue-based healthcareVBHC

Identifiers

PMID33256733
PMCPMC7706254

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.