Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37608071›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2023

Model and Empirical Data-Based Cost-Utility Studies of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Protocol of a Systematic Review on Methodology and Quality.

L A de Jong, X Li, S Emamipour, S van der Werf, M J Postma, P R van Dijk, T L Feenstra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors.

L A de JongDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. l.a.de.jong@rug.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8814-0670
X LiUnit of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GRIP), Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-6937
S EmamipourDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
S van der WerfCentral Medical Library, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5856-7657
M J PostmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
P R van DijkDepartment of Endocrinology. University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9702-6551
T L FeenstraUnit of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GRIP), Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5788-0454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis review aims to critically appraise differences in methodology and quality of model-based and empirical-data-based cost-utility studies to address key limitations, opportunities, and challenges to inform future cost-utility analyses of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes. This protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023391284).

methodsThe review will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Econlit from 2000 to January 2023. Model and empirical data-based studies evaluating the cost-utility of any CGM system in type 1 diabetes will be considered for inclusion. Studies that only report on cost per life year or any other clinical outcome, or reporting only costs or only clinical outcomes studies in type 2 diabetes populations, and studies on bi-hormonal closed loops and do-it-yourself hybrid closed loop devices will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for inclusion. Data on the intervention, population, model settings (such as perspective, time horizon), model type and structure, clinical outcomes used to populate the model, validation, and uncertainty will be extracted and qualitatively synthesised. Quality will be assessed using the Philips et al. 2006 (model-based studies) or Consensus Health Economic Criteria (empirical data-based studies) checklists. Model validation will be assessed using the AdViSHE checklist. DISCUSSION: Now that CGM is being used more broadly in practice, critical appraisal of existing cost-utility methodology and quality is important to inform future cost-utility analyses of CGM in type 1 diabetes in various settings.

Identifiers

PMID37608071
PMCPMC10721749

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.