Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35042379›Full record

SynthesisMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Manraj N Kaur, Jiajun Yan, Anne F Klassen, Justin P David, Dilshan Pieris, Manraj Sharma, Louise Bordeleau, Feng Xie

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Differences in health state valuation for small, low-risk thyroid cancer between general population and cancer survivors: a cross-sectional analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Manraj N KaurSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1911-0395
Jiajun YanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Anne F KlassenDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Justin P DavidFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dilshan PierisFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-3263
Manraj SharmaFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Louise BordeleauDepartment of Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-3263

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions. PURPOSE: Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017). STUDY SELECTION: Studies published in English that reported mean or median HUVs using direct or indirect methods of utility elicitation for breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent reviewers extracted data on a preestablished and piloted form; disagreements were resolved through discussion. DATA ANALYSIS: Mixed-effects meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood modeling was conducted for intervention type, stage of breast cancer, and typical clinical and treatment trajectory of breast cancer patients to assess the effect of study characteristics (i.e., sample size, utility elicitation method, and respondent type) on HUVs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. Most articles ( LIMITATIONS: There was considerable heterogeneity in the study population, health states assessed, and utility elicitation methods.

conclusionThis review provides a catalog of published HUVs related to breast cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in the health utility studies makes it challenging for researchers to choose which HUVs to use in cost-utility analyses for breast cancer interventions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansbreast cancereconomic evaluationhealth-related quality of lifehealth stateshealth state utility valueshealth statushealth utilitiesmeta-regressionPRISMAreviewutility score

Identifiers

PMID35042379
PMCPMC9189726

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.