ArticleMDM policy & practice
A Method for Estimating Resource Use and Costs when Empirical Data Are Unavailable: Expert Elicitation Study Using the Example of Melanoma.
Article in MDM policy & practice. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Highlights: Linked diagnosis, primary surgical management (hereafter "management"), and prescribing of systemic anticancer therapies (SACT) data describing the number and proportion of people with cancer offered these options are not readily available. The time to obtain data together with the time to conduct onerous analyses are a key barrier to obtaining values for use by decision analysts building economic models for evaluating new options for the early detection or prevention of cancer.We designed a simple expert elicitation exercise, completed in Excel. The exercise was designed to provide estimates of the total cost of cancer by stage of disease and crucially also to understand the extent of uncertainty around these estimates. We used melanoma as an exemplar cancer.Clinical experts (consultant dermatologists, surgeons, and oncologists) estimated the proportions of people offered possible diagnostic, management, or SACT options for melanoma (by stage of disease). Our study suggested that they found the expert elicitation exercise easy to understand and managed to complete the task.Random-effects meta-analysis used to pool the individual estimates indicated substantial heterogeneity across experts' estimates of most elicited proportions. This finding suggested wide variation in possible approaches to the diagnosis, management, and use of SACT for melanoma.
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.