ArticlePloS one2023
Economic evaluation of stent retrievers in basilar artery occlusion: An analysis from Chinese healthcare system perspective.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Methodological Systematic Review of Health Economic Decision Modeling Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of stent retriever (SR) versus best medical management (BMM) in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO) in China.
methodsWe used a two-step approach to compare the cost-effectiveness of SR plus BMM with that of BMM alone over 20 years. A decision tree was initially constructed for the first 3 months, followed by a Markov model for the subsequent period. Collected data on clinical aspects were extracted from the BAOCHE investigation, while costs-related information was sourced from previously published research. The key metric for evaluating the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), achieved $/QALY. The threshold for identifying SR as highly cost-effective was set at an ICER below $12,551/QALY, SR was deemed cost-effective if the ICER ranged from $12,551 to $37,654 per QALY. Uncertainty was addressed using scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).
findingsFor Chinese patients with BAO, the 20-year cost per patient was $8678 with BMM alone and $21,988 for SR plus BMM. Effectiveness was 1.45 QALY for BMM alone, and 2.77 QALY for SR plus BMM. The ICER of SR + BMM versus BMM alone was $10,050 per QALY. The scenario and one-way sensitivity analyses revealed that in certain situations the ICER could exceed $12,551 per QALY, but remain below $37,654 per QALY. Results from the PSA suggested that SR was likely to be cost-effective for Chinese patients with BAO, with a probability exceeding 98% when considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,551 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Our study indicates that SR is an intervention option that is highly likely to be cost-effective for Chinese patients with BAO, with a probability of over 98% under the current WTP threshold of $12,551 per QALY.
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.