Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42919283›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026

Towards meaningful outcome measures for health economic evaluations in skin cancer : A decision matrix to guide transparent outcome selection in skin cancer health economic evaluations, supporting more informed decision-making.

Annick Meertens, Lieven Annemans, Floor Verstraete, Isabelle Hoorens, Nick Verhaeghe

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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

5 authors.

Annick MeertensDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium. Annick.meertens@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2035-6277
Lieven AnnemansDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Floor VerstraeteDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Isabelle Hoorens *Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Nick Verhaeghe *Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

Kom op tegen Kanker 14270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare systems are facing increasing resource constraints, so robust health economic evaluations (HEE) are essential to inform evidence-based decision-making, also in skin cancer care. Selecting incomplete or inappropriate outcomes in HEE may under- or overestimate benefits for patients, misrepresent trade-offs between costs and outcomes and lead to suboptimal resource allocation. This comment discusses key considerations in selecting outcome measures for skin cancer HEE and proposes a conceptual decision matrix to guide meaningful outcome selection. Informed by methodological guidance and a targeted literature search, outcome domains applied in skin cancer HEE were categorized into quality of life based outcomes and clinical outcomes (hard and intermediate endpoints). These were assessed against predefined criteria covering measurement properties (e.g. sensitivity & validity), model integration (e.g. economic translatability & compatibility), decision relevance (e.g. interpretability for health technology assessment (HTA) & patient burden) and feasibility (e.g. data availability & generalizability). A qualitative scoring approach was used to make trade-offs between outcomes explicit. Generic quality of life outcomes facilitate comparability and interpretability for HTA but may lack sensitivity. Disease-specific outcomes better reflect patient-relevant domains but raise challenges regarding comparability. Intermediate clinical outcomes align closely with intervention mechanisms but require additional assumptions. The decision matrix highlights that no single outcome measure performs well across all criteria. Overall, the findings support selecting complementary outcome measures that reflect the intervention mechanisms, patient- preferences and burden and decision context. The proposed decision matrix provides a structured framework to support transparent and meaningful outcome selection.

Indexed as

Health economic evaluationsOutcomes researchSkin cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.