SynthesisJournal of nursing management2024
A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Clinical Nursing Practices.
Synthesis in Journal of nursing management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a Clearer Understanding of Value-Based Healthcare: A Concept Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2025Review
- The impact of Sanming's healthcare reform on medical resource misallocation: based on synthetic control method.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The misallocation of scarce healthcare resources globally raises concerns regarding the underuse of high-value care and the overuse of low-value care. Economic evaluations can help policy makers determine whether an intervention presents a better value for money and desirable clinical benefits, thus realizing value-based care. Aim: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices to advance knowledge on value-based care. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts CEA Registry for full economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices from January 2013 to January 2023. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental cost-benefit ratios, incremental net benefit, and the differences in costs for cost-minimization studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria-extended checklist. Results were synthesized using permutation matrices for all studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023415918). Results: Thirty-five studies were included in this review, with 27 studies categorized as good methodological quality and 8 as moderate quality. Clinical nursing practices were dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly) in 19 studies, potentially cost-effective depending on willingness-to-pay thresholds in 15 studies, and were dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) in 1 study. Conclusion: Our study advanced knowledge on value-based care for clinical nursing practices. Results suggest that most clinical nursing practices studied may be clearly economically favourable or potentially favourable.
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.