ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Costs and health outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a scoping review.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, accounting for 70-90% of all cases. Liver transplantation has demonstrated superior survival rates compared to surgery; however, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the costs and outcomes across different healthcare settings and patient populations. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on the costs associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of studies published between 2019 and 2024 using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, economic perspective, time horizon, discounting practices, cost components, data sources, and reported clinical outcomes. A qualitative descriptive synthesis was performed to characterize methodological approaches used to assess costs and outcomes.
resultsFifteen studies were included, including 8 cost analyses and 7 cost-effectiveness studies. Study perspective was explicitly reported in 8 studies (53.3%), including 5 from the health system perspective and 3 from the payer perspective. Time horizons ranged from 3 years to lifetime. Among economic evaluations that reported discounting, annual discount rates ranged from 3% to 5%. Direct costs were assessed in 9 studies (60.0%), and institutional or hospital-based data sources were the most commonly used.
conclusionThe included studies showed substantial methodological variation in perspective, time horizon, costing approach, and outcome definitions, which limited cross-study comparability. More standardized economic reporting is needed to strengthen future evidence on liver transplantation for HCC and support resource allocation decisions.
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.