SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2024
Economic evaluation of proton pump inhibitors in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
objectivesOur aim was to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapies and surgical interventions for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD).
designThe study design was a systematic review of economic evaluations. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications from January 1990 to March 2023. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations comparing PPIs with surgical or alternative therapies for GORD. Excluded were narrative reviews, non-peer-reviewed articles, and studies not reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, comparators, time horizon, and cost-effectiveness outcomes. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for economic evaluations.
resultsA total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) was found to be cost-effective in long-term horizons, while PPIs were preferred for short- to medium-term outcomes. Differences in healthcare settings and methodological approaches influenced the study findings.
conclusionsStrategic purchasing decisions for GORD treatment should consider the time horizon, healthcare setting, and cost structures. LNF may provide better long-term value, but PPIs remain effective for managing symptoms in the short term. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023474181.
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.