ArticleHealth economics review2025
How was published evidence used in model-based cost - utility analysis for lung cancer?
Article in Health economics review, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundModel-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the sources of clinical efficacy and safety, cost, and health utility parameters in model-based CUAs for advanced lung cancer in the United States (US) and China.
methodsWe systematically reviewed model-based CUAs of pharmacological treatments for advanced lung cancer published between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2025 in the US and Chinese setting. We classified the source of each parameter and retrieved the references cited for the parameters to analyze the citation path and level until we identified the original studies. We also compared the disease and region of parameters used in CUAs with those reported in the original studies.
resultsA total of 235 studies involving 10,005 parameters were included. Nearly half of the parameters (49.9%) were derived from published literature. Meanwhile, 17.7% had unidentifiable sources and 1.3% were based on assumptions. Among parameters cited from published literatures, 90.7% were first-level citations, but only 64.2% of cost parameters met this standard. Additionally, 30.8% of parameters showed discrepancies in disease or region between the CUAs and original studies. Parameter source distributions were similar between Chinese and US models. However, substantial differences were observed between Chinese and US models in the citation levels of cost parameters and the use of non-local utility data.
conclusionsThis study highlights challenges in parameter citation and the use of data inconsistent with the target disease and region in model-based CUAs. Enhancing transparency requires direct citation of original studies and generation of disease- and region-specific data to support robust economic evaluations.
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.