ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine in lung cancer: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprising the majority of cases. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been increasingly integrated into lung cancer care, particularly in East Asia, but its economic impact remains unclear. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to synthesize evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of TCM for lung cancer. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies included economic evaluations comparing TCM with non-TCM treatments or conventional therapies. Outcomes included direct costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including cohort studies, cross-sectional analyses, and one randomized controlled trial. The included studies spanned from 2003 to 2024, with data primarily from Taiwan and China. Findings were mixed: some studies reported higher total costs for TCM users due to additive, rather than substitutive use alongside conventional therapies. However, several studies demonstrated favorable ICERs for TCM, especially when administered over longer durations. One study showed an ICER of NT$880,908 per life-year gained, well below Taiwan's willingness-to-pay threshold. Outpatient TCM use was often more cost-effective than inpatient care, and herbal medicine appeared more economical than patent medicine. Conclusion: Adjunctive TCM may be cost-effective in lung cancer treatment when integrated thoughtfully within national healthcare systems. Cost outcomes vary by care setting, modality, and region. Future standardized, prospective evaluations are warranted to guide the efficient integration of TCM in oncology.
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.