ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Is Innovation Worth the Price? Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Interventional Oncology.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) plays a crucial role in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) by informing healthcare decision-making on resource allocation. A rigorous CEA requires selecting appropriate comparators, assessing costs comprehensively, evaluating clinically relevant outcomes, and employing robust modeling techniques to determine an intervention's value for money. This is particularly relevant in interventional oncology, where innovative yet costly procedures must demonstrate long-term benefits to justify adoption. Economic evidence is essential to guide healthcare decision-making by balancing clinical effectiveness with the efficient use of resources. However, CEA findings must be interpreted within the broader HTA framework, incorporating ethical, organizational, and social considerations. Using the analysis by Rognoni et al. as a case study comparing transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and sorafenib for the treatment of liver tumors, this paper illustrates how CEA supports evidence-based healthcare policies.
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.