ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026
Patient-Centered Value Elements in the Economic Evaluation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Targeted Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to assess the extent to which economic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatments incorporated patient-informed value elements (PIVEs) and value flower elements (VFEs), and to examine their association with economic outcomes.
methodsA targeted search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry identified full-length economic evaluations of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatments published between 2018 and 2026. Studies were reviewed for inclusion of PIVEs and VFEs. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and exploratory linear regression analyses examined associations between PIVEs, VFEs, and economic outcomes.
resultsOf 58 studies, 57 were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses conducted from a healthcare system perspective (n = 49). Physical endurance was included in all studies, whereas other PIVEs, including side effects (n = 17), access to care (n = 17), explanation of benefits and risks (n = 13), new therapeutic options (n = 11), and willingness to pay (n = 5), were less commonly considered. Among VFEs, quality-adjusted life-years (n = 55) and net cost (n = 57) predominated, while adherence-improving factors (n = 18), productivity (n = 14), reduction in uncertainty (n = 3), and severity of disease (n = 1) were inconsistently incorporated. Only one study reported direct patient engagement. Exploratory analyses found no consistent association between inclusion of PIVEs or VFEs and economic outcomes.
conclusionsEconomic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatments predominantly relied on net costs and quality-adjusted life-years, with limited incorporation of broader PIVEs or VFEs and rare patient engagement. The influence of broader value elements on economic outcomes remains uncertain. Future research should evaluate challenges to incorporating context-relevant PIVEs and VFEs and their implications for economic evaluation and healthcare decision making.
Identifiers
42911372What 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.