Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732297›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis.

Feng Xie, Ting Zhou

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. A systematic review of economic evaluations forInternational journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Economic analyses in cardiac electrophysiology: from clinical efficacy to cost utility.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada fengxie@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3454-6266
Ting ZhouDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the association between industry sponsorship (drug, medical device, and biotechnology companies) and cost effectiveness results in cost effectiveness analysis (CEA).

designRegistry based analysis DATA SOURCE: The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was used to identify all CEAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: CEAs that reported incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality adjusted life year and provided sufficient information about the magnitude or location of the ICER.

methodsDescriptive analyses were used to describe and compare the characteristics of CEAs with and without industry sponsorship. Logistic regression was used to identify the association between industry sponsorship and the cost effective conclusion using selected threshold values ($50 000 (£40 511; €47 405), $100 000, and $150 000). Robust linear regression was used to assess the association between industry sponsorship and the magnitude of ICER. All regression analyses were adjusted for disease and study design characteristics.

results8192 CEAs were eligible and included in the analysis, with 2437 (29.7%) sponsored by industry. Industry sponsored CEAs were more likely to publish ICERs below $50 000 (adjusted odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.82 to 2.33), $100 000 (2.95, 2.52 to 3.44), and $150 000 (3.34, 2.80 to 3.99) than non-industry sponsored studies. Among 5877 CEAs that reported positive incremental costs and quality adjusted life years, ICERs from industry sponsored studies were 33% lower (95% confidence interval -40 to -26) than those from non-industry sponsored studies.

conclusionsSponsorship bias in CEAs is significant, systemic, and present across a range of diseases and study designs. Use of CEAs conducted by independent bodies could provide payers with more ability to negotiate lower prices. This impartiality is especially important for countries that rely on published CEAs to inform policy making for insurance coverage because of limited capacity for independent economic analysis.

Indexed as

IndustryBiasCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRegistries

Identifiers

PMID35732297
PMCPMC9214880

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.