Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806705›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Methods for extrapolating costs and effects in economic evaluations of telehealth interventions: a scoping review protocol.

Sabine Michelsen Raunbak, Ulla Møller Weinreich, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Flemming Witt Udsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sabine Michelsen RaunbakDanish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark smr@dcm.aau.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-2859-7825
Ulla Møller WeinreichDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Søren Paaske JohnsenDanish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark.
Flemming Witt UdsenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2293-9169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionReviews of economic evaluations of telehealth interventions found that the current evidence is inconsistent with standard guidelines for conducting economic evaluation. The reviews conclude that most economic evaluations of telehealth interventions are small-scale and short-term. The choice of time horizon in economic evaluation, in general, is an important part. When using longer time horizons, it often involves extrapolating costs and effects, where assumptions are taken. Different tools for extrapolating cost and effects in economic evaluations exist. However, there is a heterogeneity in the methods used, which can create different results. Therefore, this study aims to review the design and conduct of existing long-term economic evaluations of telehealth interventions using extrapolation methods. Furthermore, the aim is to map the methods used for extrapolation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review is conducted to investigate the aim of this study. To identify relevant studies for inclusion in the scoping review, a systematic literature search will be conducted in the electronic databases: Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), EconLit (ProQuest), Web of Science (Clarivate), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CINAHL (EBSCO Industries). A grey literature search will be conducted in Google Scholar. The search will be supplemented with studies identified by reviewing the references in the included studies and reviewing the citations of the included studies. The extracted data from the studies in the scoping review will be presented in relevant descriptive tables and summarising descriptions. The results will be reported in correspondence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Hence, the methodology used is a scoping review of the existing literature; no ethical or safety considerations are identified for this study. The plan for dissemination includes a peer-reviewed publication and possible poster or oral presentations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisTelemedicineHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicHEALTH ECONOMICSMethodsProtocols & guidelinesReviewTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39806705
PMCPMC11664371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.