ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Costs of Myelomeningocele and Meningocele Treatment and Screening.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prevention of myelomeningocele (MMC) and meningocele (MC) is a public health concern. A systematic review on economic factors associated with MMC and MC can help the policy makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to provide up-to date pharmacoeconomic evidence of all economic studies present in literature on different aspects of MMC and MC. Methods: We searched in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), PubMed, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTAD), Cochrane Library, and Econlit. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the search and evaluation of literature. Only articles in English not limited by the year of publication that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review. Results: Nineteen papers were included in the study. The studies were very heterogeneous and reported a comparison of the costs between prenatal versus postnatal repair, the cost of fetoscopic approach versus open surgery, the cost of ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) versus endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), and ETV with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV/CPC), the cost of hospitalization, and the cost of diagnosis for MMC. Conclusion: The results of this study can help in implementing new policies in different countries to assist MC and MMC patients with the cost of treatment and screening.
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.