SynthesisEuropean radiology2022
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses on endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Methodological Systematic Review of Health Economic Decision Modeling Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Observational
- A lifetime economic model of mortality and secondary care use for patients discharged from hospital following acute stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2025Article
- Do you dare with a health-economy methodology issue? An editorial comment on "A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses on endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients".European radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) on endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute stroke patients, with a particular focus on the practice of accounting for costs and utilities.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of published CEAs on EVT in acute stroke patients from 1/1/2009 to 10/1/2019. Published CEAs were searched in Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Cost or comparative effectiveness analyses were excluded. Risk of bias and quality assessment was based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard checklist.
resultsTwenty-one studies were included in the final analysis, from the USA, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia. They all concluded EVT to be cost-effective, but with significant variations in methodology. Fifteen studies employed a long-term horizon (> 20 years), while only 11 incorporated risk of recurrent strokes. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold varied from $10,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to $120,000/QALY, with $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY being the most commonly used. Five studies undertook a societal perspective, but only one accounted for indirect costs. Seventeen studies based outcomes on 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores, and 9 of these 17 studies grouped outcomes by mRS 0-2 and 3-5. Among these 9 studies, the range of QALY score reported for mRS 0-2 was 0.71-0.85 QALY, and that of mRS 3-5 was 0.21-0.40.
conclusionsOur study reveals significant heterogeneity in previously published thrombectomy CEAs, highlighting need for better standardization in future CEAs. KEY POINTS: • All included studies concluded thrombectomy to be cost-effective, from both long- and short-term perspectives. • Only 5 out of 22 studies undertook a societal perspective, and only 1 accounted for indirect costs. • The range of value for mRS 0-2 was 0.71-0.85 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 0.21-0.40 QALY for mRS 3-5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35301558What 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.