Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39633403›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024

IAPN: a simple framework for evaluating whether a population-based risk stratification tool will be cost-effective before implementation.

Steven Wyatt, Mohammed A Mohammed, Peter Spilsbury

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Steven WyattThe Strategy Unit - NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Birmingham, UK. swyatt@nhs.net.
Mohammed A MohammedThe Strategy Unit - NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Birmingham, UK.
Peter SpilsburyThe Strategy Unit - NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction tools are widely used in healthcare to identify individuals at high risk of adverse events who may benefit from proactive interventions. Traditionally, these tools are evaluated primarily on statistical performance measures-such as sensitivity, specificity, discrimination, and positive predictive value (PPV)-with minimal attention given to their cost-effectiveness. As a result, while many published tools report high performance statistics, evidence is limited on their real-world efficacy and potential for cost savings. To address this gap, we propose a straightforward framework for evaluating risk prediction tools during the design phase, which incorporates both PPV and intervention effectiveness, measured by the number needed to treat (NNT). This framework shows that to be cost-effective, the per-unit cost of an intervention (I) must be less than the average cost of the adverse event (A) multiplied by the PPV-to-NNT ratio: I < A*PPV/NNT. This criterion enables decision-makers to assess the economic value of a risk prediction tool before implementation.

Indexed as

CostDesign stage evaluationInterventionNumber needed to treatPositive predictive valueRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID39633403
PMCPMC11616102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.