ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of commercial Chinese polyherbal preparations for primary insomnia: based on network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Building upon prior systematic reviews and network meta-analyses, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of four commercial Chinese polyherbal preparations (CCPPs)-Tian Meng Oral Liquid/Capsules (TM), Shen-Qi-Wu-Wei-Zi Tablets (SQWWZ), Wu Ling Capsules (WL), and Bai-Le-Mian Capsules (BLM)-for treating primary insomnia. Comparative findings informed clinical decision-making and health policy formulation. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective. A patient disease course model was developed using systematic literature search and network meta-analysis combined with drug pricing data. Intervention strategies (monotherapy or combination therapy) were simulated to assess per-capita costs and health outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and compared against the willingness-to-pay threshold. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to test the overall stability and acceptable probability of the evaluation results. Results: At a WTP threshold of ¥89,358.00 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), the combination of TM and benzodiazepines (BZDs) ranked highest in terms of cost-effectiveness, followed by WL, BLM, and SQWWZ. When the WTP threshold exceeded ¥5,897.63 per QALY, the probability that TM + BZDs was more cost-effective than WL increased. Likewise, when the WTP threshold was above ¥19,658.76 per QALY, the probability that BLM was more cost-effective than SQWWZ became greater. Conclusion: Within the 60-day time horizon of this analysis, TM + BZDs demonstrated optimal cost-effectiveness for primary insomnia from a healthcare system perspective, followed by WL and BLM. Limitations in data sources constrain the generalizability of findings. Future studies adopt a societal perspective and incorporate individual-level data over longer time horizons to validate and extend current results through more comprehensive cost-utility evaluations. Furthermore, research should focus on Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)-specific health utility scales and informing equity-focused reimbursement policies to fully capture the value of CCPPs, thereby ultimately optimizing healthcare access and resource allocation.
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.