SynthesisClinical drug investigation2025
Reporting Quality in Health Economic Evaluation Studies of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in oncology presents a critical healthcare policy challenge for resource allocation due to their substantial financial burden. This study assessed the reporting quality of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies of ICIs.
methodsThis study conducted a systematic literature search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the International HTA Database) for studies published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2022. All ICIs approved up to December 31, 2022, in the USA, EU, China, and Japan were included. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013 (CHEERS 2013), which is the most widely recognised and implemented reporting guideline for HEE studies. Subgroup analyses were also performed based on the risk of sponsorship bias or citation of CHEERS 2013.
resultsA total of 5368 records were identified, 252 of which were included after full-text review. The study design, setting, and ICIs most frequently observed were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses (63.5%), the USA (46.0%), and pembrolizumab (38.1%), respectively. Of the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, fully reported items were limited, particularly in the Methods section. Setting and location were not reported in 94.4% of the records. Subgroup analyses also revealed insufficient reporting of items in the Methods section, particularly "Setting and location".
conclusionHealth economic evaluation studies on ICIs between 2014 and 2022 had limited reporting across the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, regardless of sponsorship bias risk or citations. The items on setting and location in the Methods section were particularly underreported, emphasising the need for transparent reporting in HEE studies of ICIs.
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.