ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of drug-eluting beads and conventional transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Article
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
Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) for first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Based on the real-world clinical data of HCC patients receiving interventional therapy, a partitioned survival model was constructed for cost-effectiveness analysis. The model period is 1 month, and the research time limit is 10 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is used as the evaluation index. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters to test the stability of the model results. Results: The ICER of the DEB-TACE group was 11,875.62 $/QALYs, which was lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of 31,499.23 $/QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility value of progression-free survival (PFS) in the DEB-TACE group had the greatest impact. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the level of WTP of 31,499.23 $/QALYs, DEB-TACE had a cost-effective probability of 92%. Conclusion: Under the current economic level in my country, DEB-TACE is more cost-effective than cTACE in the treatment of HCC patients.
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.