ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024
Empirical Testing of Alternative Search Methods to Retrieve Utility Values for Health Economic Modelling.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.
methodsThe usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.
resultsThe usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.
conclusionsIn this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39107622What 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.