ArticleActa medica Philippina2026
Cost-utility Analysis of R-CHOP vs CHOP in Patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) ranks 11th in cancer incidence and mortality in the Philippines with the combination chemotherapy composed of Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (CHOP) being commonly used as treatment. However, the addition of Rituximab to CHOP (R-CHOP) has been shown to exhibit higher response rates and longer remissions, potentially improving quality of life. Currently, there is conflicting evidence on the cost-utility of CHOP versus R-CHOP. The study aimed to describe the patient-and country-specific factors, and treatment modalities used for NHL and systematically review cost-utility evidence of R-CHOP versus CHOP in adult NHL patients. Methods: A systematic literature search of cost-utility studies on R-CHOP versus CHOP for NHL treatment was performed on eight databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, Cochrane, York Research Database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and HERDIN, where 607 studies were identified. Upon screening using an eligibility criteria, 10 studies were included and critically assessed using four appraisal tools: CHEERS, Drummond, Cooper, and ECOBIAS. These were performed independently by two authors with a third author assisting to help reach a consensus. Results: All studies from high-income countries (HICs) (n=8) and low-middle-income country (LMIC) (n=1) suggested that R-CHOP was more cost-effective for NHL treatment than CHOP in terms of utility outcomes. The study conducted in a low-income country (LIC) (n=1) suggested the opposite, favoring CHOP over R-CHOP. Methodological differences such as perspective, discount rate, willingness-to-pay (WTP), time horizon, and economic model were observed. Methodological limitations include completeness of data reported and credibility of sources used. Conclusion: The results of this review shall be interpreted with caution as those favoring R-CHOP over CHOP for NHL treatment in terms of cost-utility were concentrated in HICs. More economic evaluations from LICs, LMICs, and upper-middle income countries (UMICs) are needed for a robust conclusion. Additionally, establishing a universally recognized guideline for economic evaluations is essential to guide researchers effectively.
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.