ArticleHealth economics review2026
Economic evaluation of automated scalp cooling systems for breast cancer patients in Spain.
Article in Health economics review, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent alternatives exist to prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA), such as scalp cooling (SC). We conducted an economic evaluation to assess SC systems for breast cancer patients in Spain.
methodsA decision tree was built to compare automated SC systems (DigniCap® and Paxman) with the usual clinical practice in Spain (not using the SC), over an 18-month time horizon and applying the National Health Service (NHS) and social perspectives. The target population were women diagnosed with breast cancer (stages I and II), undergoing chemotherapy treatment. We estimated the number of women preventing CIA, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe DigniCap® system increased costs by €505.97 and €251.8 (NHS and social perspectives), while the Paxman system did by €176.95 (NHS perspective), compared to not using SC. Both systems could generate 0.03 QALYs more than the usual clinical practice. The ICERs were below the willingness to pay threshold (€25 000 per QALY). Paxman, from the social perspective, represented a cost reduction of €77.22, being less costly and more effective in terms of QALYs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. SC systems prevented CIA in 47% of the target population.
conclusionsAutomated SC systems could generate a higher cost (except Paxman from the social perspective) and more QALYs compared to the usual clinical practice in Spain. They could be considered cost-effectiveness technologies or a dominant alternative, in the case of Paxman applying a social perspective.
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.