Budget impact analysis for avatrombopag in the treatment of chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia in adult patients refractory to other treatments.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Clinician's knowledge and awareness of patient-reported outcomes in immune thrombocytopenia: Results of a national survey (ITP NET, GIMEMA Working Group Anemia and Thrombocytopenia).Journal of public health research · 2025
   Article
2. The Cost-Effectiveness of Avatrombopag Versus Eltrombopag and Romiplostim in the Treatment of Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia in the UK.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025
   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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as