A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners in primary and specialised ambulatory care: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Martin-Misener ◽  
Patricia Harbman ◽  
Faith Donald ◽  
Kim Reid ◽  
Kelley Kilpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health System ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Ambulatory Care ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering primary and specialised ambulatory care. Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials reported since 1980. Data sources: 10 electronic bibliographic databases, handsearches, contact with authors, bibliographies and websites. Included studies: Randomised controlled trials that evaluated nurse practitioners in alternative and complementary ambulatory care roles and reported health system outcomes. Results: 11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles,nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but care roles,nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: −€6.41; 95% CI −€9.28 to −€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly. Conclusions: Nurse practitioners in alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles have equivalent or better patient outcomes than comparators and are potentially cost-saving. Evidence for their cost-effectiveness in alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles is promising, but limited by the few studies. While some evidence indicates nurse practitioners in complementary specialised ambulatory care roles improve patient outcomes, their cost-effectiveness requires further study.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners in primary and specialised ambulatory care: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Martin-Misener ◽  
Patricia Harbman ◽  
Faith Donald ◽  
Kim Reid ◽  
Kelley Kilpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health System ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Ambulatory Care ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering primary and specialised ambulatory care. Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials reported since 1980. Data sources: 10 electronic bibliographic databases, handsearches, contact with authors, bibliographies and websites. Included studies: Randomised controlled trials that evaluated nurse practitioners in alternative and complementary ambulatory care roles and reported health system outcomes. Results: 11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles,nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but care roles,nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: −€6.41; 95% CI −€9.28 to −€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly. Conclusions: Nurse practitioners in alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles have equivalent or better patient outcomes than comparators and are potentially cost-saving. Evidence for their cost-effectiveness in alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles is promising, but limited by the few studies. While some evidence indicates nurse practitioners in complementary specialised ambulatory care roles improve patient outcomes, their cost-effectiveness requires further study.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychodynamic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

scholarly journals Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Physiotherapy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. e90-e91
Author(s):  
T. Noblet ◽  
J. Marriott ◽  
E. Graham-Clarke ◽  
D. Shirley ◽  
A. Rushton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals ‘Not clinically effective but cost-effective’ - paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e029596 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Raftery ◽  
HC Williams ◽  
Aileen Clarke ◽  
Jim Thornton ◽  
John Norrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Null Results ◽  
Health Technology Assessment Programme ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesRandomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: ‘the intervention is not clinically effective’ but ‘is probably cost-effective’. This study aims to quantify the extent of non-significant results and the types of conclusions drawn from them.DesignCross-sectional retrospective analysis of randomised trials published by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme. We defined as ‘doubly null’ those trials that found non-statistically significant differences in both primary outcome and cost per patient. Paradoxical was defined as concluding in favour of an intervention, usually compared with placebo or usual care. No human participants were involved. Our sample was 226 randomised trial projects published by the Health Technology Assessment programme 2004 to 2017. All are available free online.ResultsThe 226 projects contained 193 trials with a full economic evaluation. Of these 76 (39%) had at least one ‘doubly null’ comparison. These 76 trials contained 94 comparisons. In these 30 (32%) drew economic conclusions in favour of an intervention. Overall report conclusions split roughly equally between those favouring the intervention (14), and those favouring either the control (7) or uncertainty (9).DiscussionTrials with ‘doubly null’ results and paradoxical conclusions are not uncommon. The differences observed in cost and quality-adjustedlife year were small and non-statistically significant. Almost all these trials were also published in leading peer-reviewed journals. Although some guidelines for reporting economic results require cost-effectiveness estimates regardless of statistical significance, the interpretability of paradoxical results has nowhere been addressed.ConclusionsReconsideration is required of the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results, particularly when economics favours a novel intervention.

scholarly journals The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Glycaemic Control in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omorogieva Ojo ◽  
Sharon M. Weldon ◽  
Trevor Thompson ◽  
Elisabeth J. Vargo
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent amongst pregnant women and is linked to a range of adverse complications, including gestational diabetes. However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding the impact of vitamin D supplementation in alleviating adverse effects in gestational diabetes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementation of vitamin D given to women with gestational diabetes can promote glycaemic control. EMBASE and PubMed were searched up to November, 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials of the effect of vitamin D supplementation (1000–4762 IU/day) on pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Study data and outcome measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin and serum insulin) were extracted from included studies. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity tests, and analysis of the risk of bias were conducted. Most of the studies were graded as having either low risk or moderate risk of bias although two studies had a high risk of bias in the areas of blinding of participants and personnel, and incomplete outcome data. On the other hand, the heterogeneity statistic (I2) ranged from 0–41% in the studies included. Five randomised controlled trials were selected for this review and meta-analysis (involving a total of 173 participants supplemented with vitamin D and 153 participants as control drawn from the studies). Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decrease in fasting blood glucose by a mean of 0.46 mmol/L (−0.68, −0.25) (p < 0.001), glycated haemoglobin by a mean of 0.37% (−0.65, −0.08) (p < 0.01) and serum insulin concentration by mean of 4.10 µIU/mL (−5.50, −2.71) (p < 0.001) compared to controls. This review shows evidence that vitamin D supplementation has the potential to promote glycaemic control in women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). However, due to the limited number of studies in the meta-analysis, the conclusion should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are needed to fully understand the exact mechanism by which vitamin D influences glucose metabolism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document