Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298168›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates.

Gemma E Shields, Jamie Elvidge

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 22 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of setmelanotide.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Behaviour change interventions to improve physical activity in adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Gemma E ShieldsManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PY, UK. gemma.shields@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4869-7524
Jamie ElvidgeCentre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M1 4BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economic evaluations help decision-makers faced with tough decisions on how to allocate resources. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful as they allow readers to assess whether interventions have been demonstrated to be cost effective, the uncertainty in the evidence base, and key limitations or gaps in the evidence base. The synthesis of systematic reviews of economic evaluations commonly takes a narrative approach whereas a meta-analysis is common step for reviews of clinical evidence (e.g. effectiveness or adverse event outcomes). As they are common objectives in other reviews, readers may query why a synthesis has not been attempted for economic outcomes. However, a meta-analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, or health benefits (including quality-adjusted life years) is fraught with issues largely due to heterogeneity across study designs and methods and further practical challenges. Therefore, meta-analysis is rarely feasible or robust. This commentary outlines these issues, supported by examples from the literature, to support researchers and reviewers considering systematic review of economic evidence.

Indexed as

Research DesignCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSystematic Reviews as TopicCost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33298168
PMCPMC7727163

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.