SynthesisPalliative medicine2026
Economic evaluations in the palliative and end-of-life care settings: A systematic review of existing evidence, methods and quality.
Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safeguarding palliative and serious illness care in America.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRising need for palliative and end-of-life care requires reliable cost-effectiveness evidence to support optimal resource allocation. Relevant value propositions and the applicability of conventional economic evaluation methods, however, may differ from other healthcare fields.
aimTo synthesise and critically appraise context-specific economic evaluations with comprehensive methodological and quality lenses including decision-making aspects.
designWe conducted a systematic review of published palliative and end-of-life economic evaluations following a registered, peer-reviewed protocol (CRD42020148160). Cost-effectiveness results, methods, reporting quality (CHEERS), study quality (CHEC) and decision-making contexts were summarised narratively. DATA SOURCES: The databases EMBASE, HTA-Database, MEDLINE, and NHS-EE-Database were searched between 2010 and 2024.
resultsOf the 4190 identified references, 46 studies were included. Overall, 59% of the studies stemmed from four countries (UK, Canada, the Netherlands, USA), 54% were trial-based economic evaluations, 59% investigated cancer-related interventions, 41% were conducted in hospital settings, 63% were cost-utility analyses with 83% using EQ-5D for QALY-calculations. Studies typically took a health (and social) care perspective (63%) with 58% corresponding to national health technology assessment decision-making requirements. Of the evaluated interventions, 51% were cost-effective. Reporting quality (52%-96%) and study quality (56%-94%) greatly varied.
conclusionsEconomic evaluations in palliative and end-of-life care settings mainly adhered to commonly required decision-making frameworks. This may result in sub-optimal analytical perspectives leading to important missed consequences, omitted alternative value considerations, and ignorance of some existing context-specific methodological recommendations. Developing and promoting consensus-based, context-specific methodological recommendations would be crucial to enhance the appropriateness of economic evaluation evidence in this context.
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.