ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2026
The Feasibility of Combining Cost-Effectiveness, Bayesian Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Techniques When Evaluating Melanoma Treatment Methods.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Melanoma treatment encompasses surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. Despite declining mortality due to therapeutic advances, increasing incidence underscores the growing importance of cost-effectiveness analyses. The integration of cost-effectiveness evaluation with Bayesian meta-analysis and meta-regression may enhance the synthesis of heterogeneous evidence. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies reporting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct treatment costs for melanoma in PubMed, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE Ultimate. Bayesian meta-analysis with non-informative priors was applied to derive pooled estimates and quantify uncertainty. Results: A total of 272 studies were identified, of which only a limited subset met the inclusion criteria. The studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity in treatments, populations, time horizons, perspectives, and costs. Meta-analysis based on the effects provided in one study showed that chemotherapy demonstrated lower effectiveness, as measured by QALYs, compared with treatment sequences such as Anti-PD1 → Bi-TT and Bi-TT → Anti-PD1 in both BRAF-mutated and wild-type populations. Lower costs were associated with chemotherapy, ipilimumab, and Anti-PD1 relative to combination and sequential regimens. Meta-analysis based on the effects provided in another study showed that treatment costs increased with advancing disease stage (≥IIIA) and exhibited greater variability in advanced melanoma. Conclusion: The combined methodological approach enhances the robustness and comparability of estimates. The observed variability in both clinical effectiveness and costs, across treatment strategies and disease stages, has important implications for healthcare decision-making and resource allocation.
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.