ArticleBMJ open2023
Evaluation of health utility in trial-based cost-utility analyses for major cardiovascular disease: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe global incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is high, and the medical costs associated with its management have been increasing. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are essential for understanding the value of healthcare interventions and for decision-making. A majority of the CUAs for CVD are model based and have cited health utilities from previously published data; standard health utilities for the CUAs of CVD have not been established yet. Thus, we aim to identify the standard utilities according to the patients' condition and disease severity in patients with major CVDs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for trial-based CUA studies that have reported on quality-adjusted life-years using original health utilities for patients with three major forms of CVD (coronary artery disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation). Papers on trial-based CUAs will be included, while those on model-based CUAs will be excluded. No restrictions will be made in terms of intervention type. The main outcome comprises the health utilities calculated on a scale of 0-1 (irrespective of the measurement methods) at baseline and after treatment. Two independent investigators will screen the eligibility of articles; they will extract data, including health utilities, from the eligible articles for further analysis. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We will describe the means and SDs of the health utilities from all the included studies. The mean utility weights for individual studies will be combined through meta-analyses using a random-effects model to obtain the representative health utility value for each disease. Subgroup analyses will be conducted according to the severity and duration of each disease. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The review will be submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022316278.
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.