ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
Development of a face-validated conceptual model structure for economic evaluation in phenylketonuria, through expert elicitation.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical complexity and limitations of available evidence make cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in phenylketonuria (PKU) challenging, with no consensus model structure emerging from historical CEAs. This research aimed to elicit perspectives from PKU medical experts regarding approaches for CEA modeling, to inform development of a face-validated model structure.
methodsIn a modified e-Delphi study, clinical experts rated their agreement/disagreement with 14 statements on clinical outcomes, diet, target population, blood phenylalanine (Phe)-level classification, and treatment discontinuation. Separately, a survey of a broader sample of experts elicited perspectives on the prevalence of PKU comorbidities, and biological plausibility of the association of surrogate outcomes with comorbidity risk. Insights informed development of the conceptual structure and parameters for a CEA model.
resultsIn the modified e-Delphi study, participants (N = 11) achieved consensus (≥ 70% agreement/disagreement) on statements on the associations of blood Phe levels with outcomes, unmet need, mechanisms for the association of PKU with chronic comorbidities, and medical management approaches. In the survey (N = 30), ≥ 70% of participants agreed that prevalence of comorbidities is higher in PKU vs. the general population, and that increased natural-protein consumption may reduce comorbidity risk, including for depression, osteoporosis, overweight, anemia, and type two diabetes mellitus. Findings informed development of a CEA model structure comprising five blood Phe level-defined health states (range: ≤120 µmol/L to > 1200 µmol/L), associated with four classes of patient-relevant clinical outcomes in PKU: contemporaneous symptoms/manifestations, intellectual disability, comorbidities, and diet liberalization.
conclusionsIn this research, perspectives were elicited from medical experts in PKU to develop a clinically informed, face-validated conceptual model structure for CEA, and to identify associated parameters. The resulting de novo economic model allows for valuation of numerous important patient-relevant outcomes, enabling modeling of the heterogeneous drivers of unmet need in PKU. The structured expert-elicitation approach used in this research, and documentation of the influence of perspectives elicited on model structure and parameters, support the validity of the model for application in economic evaluation of interventions for PKU.
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.