Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232445›Full record

ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2022

Systematic review of the evidence sources applied to cost-effectiveness analyses for older women with primary breast cancer.

Yubo Wang, Sean P Gavan, Douglas Steinke, Kwok-Leung Cheung, Li-Chia Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yubo WangCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, 1st Floor Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK. yubo.wang@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2686-8946
Sean P GavanManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-056X
Douglas SteinkeCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, 1st Floor Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8917-2674
Kwok-Leung CheungSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Royal Derby Hospital Centre, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3DT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2973-0755
Li-Chia ChenCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, 1st Floor Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6158-6645
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo appraise the sources of evidence and methods to estimate input parameter values in decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for primary breast cancer (PBC) in older patients (≥ 70 years old).

methodsTwo electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE) were searched (inception until 5 September-2021) to identify model-based full economic evaluations of treatments for older women with PBC as part of their base-case target population or age-subgroup analysis. Data sources and methods to estimate four types of input parameters including health-related quality of life (HRQoL); natural history; treatment effect; resource use were extracted and appraised. Quality assessment was completed by reference to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

resultsSeven model-based economic evaluations were included (older patients as part of their base-case (n = 3) or subgroup (n = 4) analysis). Data from younger patients (< 70 years) were used frequently to estimate input parameters. Different methods were adopted to adjust these estimates for an older population (HRQoL: disutility multipliers, additive utility decrements; Natural history: calibration of absolute values, one-way sensitivity analyses; Treatment effect: observational data analysis, age-specific behavioural parameters, plausible scenario analyses; Resource use: matched control observational data analysis, age-dependent follow-up costs).

conclusionImproving estimated input parameters for older PBC patients will improve estimates of cost-effectiveness, decision uncertainty, and the value of further research. The methods reported in this review can inform future cost-effectiveness analyses to overcome data challenges for this population. A better understanding of the value of treatments for these patients will improve population health outcomes, clinical decision-making, and resource allocation decisions.

Indexed as

Data sources of input parametersDecision-analytic modellingEconomic evaluationOlder womenPrimary breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID35232445
PMCPMC8889747
OpenAlexW4214641259

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.