Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34151407›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2021

Towards Transparency in the Selection of Published Health Utility Inputs in Cost-Utility Analyses: The Health Utility Application Tool (HAT).

Michael J Zoratti, Kelvin K W Chan, Don Husereau, Murray Krahn, Mitchell Levine, Lehana Thabane, Feng Xie, Health Utility Book (HUB) Working Group

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michael J ZorattiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kelvin K W ChanSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Don HusereauSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4416-6876
Murray KrahnToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mitchell LevineDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. fengxie@mcmaster.ca.
Health Utility Book (HUB) Working Group
Impact · CAMcMaster University Medical Centre · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluating the relevance of published health utilities to the context of a cost-utility analysis (CUA) remains an essential, yet often overlooked, task.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to provide guidance on this process through the development of the Health utility Application Tool (HAT).

methodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with Canadian stakeholders from reimbursement bodies, academia, and the pharmaceutical industry to identify current practices and perspectives of the application of the health utility literature to CUAs. An online survey with international members of the general health economics and outcomes research community was also conducted to gather opinions on key concepts.

resultsBased on the themes emerging from the interviews and online questionnaire, the HAT includes questions prompting investigators to consider the following constructs: similarity of the clinical condition in the health utility study and the CUA; similarity of health utility study participant demographics and the demographics of the CUA's target population; similarity of the health state descriptions in the health utility study and the CUA; and the method of assigning utility weights. Considerations of transparency prompted additional items, including: means by which the health utility study was identified; type of respondents; study design; and measure used to collect health utility estimates.

conclusionThe HAT is intended to guide the evaluation of the applicability of published health utilities for a CUA, thus promoting transparency and accountability in the selection of model inputs.

Indexed as

PublicationsResearch DesignCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID34151407
OpenAlexW3177437141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.