Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36290851›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada.

Andrea M Guggenbickler, Heather K Barr, Jeffrey S Hoch, Carolyn S Dewa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Andrea M GuggenbicklerGraduate Group in Public Health Sciences, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Heather K BarrGraduate Group in Public Health Sciences, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Jeffrey S HochDivision of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4880-4281
Carolyn S DewaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95817, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHumansAntineoplastic Agentscancercancer interventionscost-effectivenesseconomic evaluationhealthcarereal-world interventions

Identifiers

PMID36290851
PMCPMC9600856

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.