SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Cost-effectiveness of home care compared to hospital care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Application of Kano model-based pulmonary rehabilitation interventions in discharge preparation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare, through a systematic literature review, the cost-effectiveness ratio of home care compared to hospital care for following up patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: This review was registered in PROSPERO, and the bibliographic search was performed in six primary databases [MedLine (via PubMed), Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Web of Science, and Embase], two dedicated databases for economic studies (NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and two databases for partially searching the "gray literature" (DansEasy and ProQuest). This review only included studies that compared home and hospital care for patients diagnosed with COPD, regardless of publication year or language. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. A JBI tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Results and discussion: 7,279 studies were found, of which 14 met the eligibility criteria. Only one study adequately met all items of the risk of bias assessment. Thirteen studies found lower costs and higher effectiveness for home care. Home care showed a better cost-effectiveness ratio than hospital care for COPD patients. Regarding effectiveness, there is no possibility of choosing a more effective care for COPD patients, given the incipience of the data presented on eligible studies. However, considering the analyzed data refer only to high-income countries, caution is required when extrapolating this conclusion to low- and low-middle-income countries. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022319488.
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.