Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42360742›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Economic and Resource Use-Related Guidance in US Medical Societies' Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Anand R Habib, Omar Qureshi, Reshma Ramachandran, Joseph S Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anand R HabibDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Omar QureshiYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Reshma RamachandranNational Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Joseph S RossNational Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001864 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CANTLEY, LLOYD G, EDELMAN, E. JENNIFER · 2016 to 2025
$9.9M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001864
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The extent to which medical societies' clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide economic or resource use-related guidance that could inform value-based care is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the proportion of and factors associated with CPG recommendations incorporating economic or resource use-related considerations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included CPG documents and recommendations from 23 large US-based medical societies, which were published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. Data were extracted from April to August 2024 and analyzed from September 2024 to April 2025. Exposures: Recommendation-level characteristics (ie, intervention type); guideline-level characteristics (ie, multisociety effort); society-level characteristics (ie, primary-care vs specialty-care society); and how a society suggested that economic or resource use-related evidence be considered. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each recommendation, the presence of economic or resource use-related guidance in the upfront summary statement or the narrative discussion of the supporting evidence. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated to assess factors associated with incorporation of economic or resource use-related considerations. Results: Among 7582 recommendations within 309 CPG documents, 5017 recommendations (66.2%) were treatment-related, 4080 (53.8%) were issued through multisociety efforts, and 286 (3.8%) by primary-care societies. Per the 23 societies' CPG development methods manuals, 14 societies (60.9%) explicitly suggested that economic or resource use-related evidence be considered, 6 (26.1%) ambiguously addressed their approach, and 3 (13.0%) never addressed their approach. Among 7582 recommendations overall, 1706 (22.5%) narratively discussed economic or resource use-related evidence, and 287 (3.8%) contained upfront economic or resource use-related statements. In multilevel multivariable analyses, upfront economic or resource use-related statements were more likely if recommendations were issued by a primary care society (OR, 12.81; 95% CI, 3.37-48.70) or were treatment-related (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.59) compared with diagnostic-related, and they were less likely if developed by multisociety consensus (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.47). Narrative economic or resource use-related evidence discussions were more likely if recommendations were issued by societies that explicitly suggested economic or resource use-related evidence be considered (OR, 6.26; 95% CI, 2.16-18.15) compared with societies whose approach was not addressed and less likely if formulated by multisociety consensus (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, most medical societies explicitly suggested that economic or resource use-related evidence be considered when developing CPGs. However, their recommendations infrequently included economic or resource use-related considerations. Higher quality health economic evidence and societies' more explicit consideration of such evidence may allow CPGs to better inform value-based care.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansUnited StatesValue-Based Health Care

Identifiers

PMID42360742
PMCPMC13309863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.