Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33840432›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2021

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

Joanna C Thorn, Charlotte F Davies, Sara T Brookes, Sian M Noble, Melina Dritsaki, Ewan Gray, Dyfrig A Hughes, Borislava Mihaylova, Stavros Petrou, Colin Ridyard and 4 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Application of Discrete Event Simulation Models for COPD Management: A Systematic Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Combined strategy of upfront CTCA and optimal treatment for stable chest pain: rationale and design of the CLEAR-CAD trial.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024
    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

14 authors.

Joanna C ThornPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: joanna.thorn@bristol.ac.uk.
Charlotte F DaviesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sara T BrookesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sian M NoblePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Melina DritsakiOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ewan GrayEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Dyfrig A HughesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Borislava MihaylovaHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Oxford National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, The Joint Research Office, Oxford, UK.
Stavros PetrouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK & Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Colin RidyardCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Tracey SachHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Edward C F WilsonHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Sarah WordsworthHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, The Joint Research Office, Oxford, UK.
William HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.

methodsA list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.

results62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.

conclusionsVia expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDelphi TechniqueEconomicsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and Questionnairesanalysis plansbiaseconomic evaluation

Identifiers

PMID33840432
PMCPMC8024512

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.