Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37924060›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023

Economic evaluation of dialysis and comprehensive conservative care for chronic kidney disease using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L; a comparison of evaluation instruments.

Telma Zahirian Moghadam, Jane Powell, Afshan Sharghi, Hamed Zandian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Telma Zahirian MoghadamSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1290-4202
Jane PowellCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, School of Health and Social Wellbeing, College of Health, Science and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-1184
Afshan SharghiDepartment of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-4320
Hamed ZandianSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran. zandian.hamed899@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1284-5823
Ardabil University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Ardabil University of Medical Sciences 032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients often require long-term care, and while Hemodialysis (HD) is the standard treatment, Comprehensive Conservative Care (CCC) is gaining popularity as an alternative. Economic evaluations comparing their cost-effectiveness are crucial. This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing HD and CCC using the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O instruments to assessing healthcare interventions in CKD patients.

methodsThis short-term economic evaluation involved 183 participants (105 HD, 76 CCC) and collected data on demographics, comorbidities, laboratory results, treatment costs, and HRQoL measured by ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) and Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) were calculated separately for each instrument, and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) assessed uncertainty.

resultsCCC demonstrated significantly lower costs (mean difference $8,544.52) compared to HD. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O indicated higher Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for both groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CCC dominated HD in terms of HRQoL measures, with ICERs of -$141,742.67 (EQ-5D-5L) and -$4,272.26 (ICECAP-O). NMB was positive for CCC and negative for HD, highlighting its economic feasibility.

conclusionCCC proves a preferable and more cost-effective treatment option than HD for CKD patients aged 65 and above, regardless of the quality-of-life measure used for QALY calculations. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O showed similar results in cost-utility analysis.

Indexed as

Chronic kidney diseaseComprehensive conservative careCost-effectiveness analysisDialysisElderlyQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID37924060
PMCPMC10625205
OpenAlexW4388279377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.