Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37433725›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations.

Valérie N E Schuermans, Ruud Droeghaag, Sem M M Hermans, Anouk Y J M Smeets, Inge J M H Caelers, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Wouter L W van Hemert, Silvia Evers, Henk van Santbrink, Expert Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Decentralized clinical trials for medications to reduce the risk of dementia: Consensus report and guidance.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Valérie N E Schuermans *Department of Neurosurgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands valerie.schuermans@mumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1733-8564
Ruud Droeghaag *Caphri School of Public Health an Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0955-7983
Sem M M HermansCaphri School of Public Health an Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anouk Y J M SmeetsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Inge J M H CaelersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Mickaël HiligsmannCaphri School of Public Health an Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-9258
Wouter L W van HemertDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Silvia EversCaphri School of Public Health an Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Henk van SantbrinkDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Expert Group
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research.

designA modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

settingA four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement.

participantsA total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery.

resultsA total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline.

conclusionThis study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignConsensusCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch Personnelhealth economicsprotocols & guidelinesspine

Identifiers

PMID37433725
PMCPMC10347447
OpenAlexW4383893527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.