ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Effects of Trial Population Selection on Quality of Life and Healthcare Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Example in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Radioembolization.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with SIRT and nivolumab: a sub-analysis of the NASIR-HCC trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- Association of adverse events and quality of life in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsQuality of life is among the most important considerations in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), arguably second only to overall survival. Measuring and modeling patient quality of life is also crucial in the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of health interventions. In the present study, we aimed to identify cost-utility analyses comparing selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with systemic therapy in patients with unresectable HCC and to compare the modeled incremental quality of life differences between the two therapies.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and health technology assessment agency websites were searched to identify cost-utility studies of SIRT versus systemic therapies in the treatment of HCC. Key characteristics of the studies, modeled populations and incremental quality of life outcomes were extracted from the included studies.
resultsThe systematic literature review retrieved 1140 studies, of which four were ultimately included. Hand searches then identified two distinct analyses, and an updated version of one of the four studies identified initially. From these seven studies, 18 analyses were included. Analyses using data from the overall trial populations reported incremental quality-of-life estimates spanning -0.09 to +0.28 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with that range expanding to -0.09 to +0.60 QALYs when also considering post hoc sub-group analyses.
conclusionThe wide range of incremental QALYs, with substantial differences between overall trial populations and subgroups, illustrates the impact that the choice of target population may have on the relative quality of life outcomes of the compared interventions, which may in turn affect clinical decision-making. The small differences also highlight both the importance of reporting measures of dispersion around the findings, and the limitations of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions that are predicted to result in similar quality-of-life outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.