ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999
Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring How Values of Colorectal Cancer Patients and their Caregivers Influence Treatment Decision-Making.The patient · 2025Article
- Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.The patient · 2016Review
- Provincial elections and timing of cancer drug funding.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
- Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Alignment of practice guidelines with targeted-therapy drug funding policies in Ontario.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2013Article
- The timing of drug funding announcements relative to elections: a case study involving dementia medications.PloS one · 2013Article
- 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.Journal of oncology practice · 2008Article
- The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2007Review
- Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success.BMC health services research · 2004Article
- Evidence based medicine guidelines: a solution to rationing or politics disguised as science?Journal of medical ethics · 2004Review
- Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2003Review
- A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2003Review
- Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
- New treatments for advanced cancer: an approach to prioritization.British journal of cancer · 2000Article
- Lack of funding will inhibit evidence based commissioning of cancer treatments.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.