ArticleBMJ open2023
Estimating the cost-effectiveness and return on investment of the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry in Australia: a minimum threshold analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to establish the minimum level of clinical benefit attributable to the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) for the registry to be cost-effective.
designA modelled cost-effectiveness study of VCOR was conducted from the Australian healthcare system and societal perspectives.
settingObserved deaths and costs attributed to coronary heart disease (CHD) over a 5-year period (2014-2018) were compared with deaths and costs arising from a hypothetical situation which assumed that VCOR did not exist. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and published sources were used to construct a decision analytic life table model to simulate the follow-up of Victorians aged ≥25 years for 5 years, or until death. The assumed contribution of VCOR to the proportional change in CHD mortality trend observed over the study period was varied to quantify the minimum level of clinical benefits required for the registry to be cost-effective. The marginal costs of VCOR operation and years of life saved (YoLS) were estimated. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The return on investment (ROI) ratio and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsThe minimum proportional change in CHD mortality attributed to VCOR required for the registry to be considered cost-effective was 0.125%. Assuming this clinical benefit, a net return of $A4.30 for every dollar invested in VCOR was estimated (ROI ratio over 5 years: 4.3 (95% CI 3.6 to 5.0)). The ICER estimated for VCOR was $A49 616 (95% CI $A42 228 to $A59 608) per YoLS. Sensitivity analyses found that the model was sensitive to the time horizon assumed and the extent of registry contribution to CHD mortality trends.
conclusionsVCOR is likely cost-effective and represents a sound investment for the Victorian healthcare system. Our evaluation highlights the value of clinical quality registries in Australia.
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.