ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Inclusion of Adverse Drug Events: A Scoping Review of Economic Models of Pharmacological Interventions for Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Diabetic Macular Edema.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Incorporation of adverse drug events (ADEs) is suboptimal in economic evaluation, and thus the information provided by it may be inaccurate. Better guidance on incorporating ADEs into economic evaluation prompts for exploring whether the results are sensitive to ADEs. Methods: This scoping review explored 242 cost-effectiveness models for pharmacological interventions for type 1 (T1DM) and 2 diabetes (T2DM), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and diabetic macular edema (DME), in relation to the type of ADEs included in the models (if any), whether the results were sensitive to the ADEs, and what could explain their potential impact. Results: Of the analyses partly or completely including ADEs, 62% examined their impact on the results, with half of them (50%) reporting ADE-related sensitivity. The models included common to very common ADEs, and some rare but severe ones. The main reasons for excluding ADEs were low incidence (13%) and no reporting in clinical trials (13%). Many analyses reported no reason for the exclusion (53%). The analyses for T1DM and DR or DME included more severe ADEs and reported a higher ADE-related sensitivity compared to the analyses of T2DM (76,2%, 77.8%, and 46.4%, respectively). Higher incidence of ADEs (60,0%) and time trade off method (72,2%) were associated with higher ADE-related sensitivity (72,2%). Conclusion: Incidence, condition, and the measure of utility were associated with the results being sensitive to ADEs. ADEs are an important outcome for the results of economic evaluation and better guidance on their inclusion and exclusion is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.