SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Systematic review of cost-effectiveness of Chinese PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review evaluates the economic evidence of Chinese PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China. The primary objective is to summarize cost-effectiveness findings to compare economic outcomes across specific therapeutic regimens and guide policymakers in optimizing resource allocation for HCC treatment.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to July 19, 2024, following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) criteria for study selection. This review was not registered in PROSPERO as it is a narrative synthesis of economic evaluations rather than a protocol-driven meta-analysis. Nonetheless, we rigorously adhered to PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and accuracy throughout the study selection and data extraction processes. Data from eligible studies were systematically extracted and analyzed.
resultsFourteen cost-effectiveness analyses met inclusion criteria, and the interventions evaluated primarily compared immunotherapy with targeted therapy. Eleven studies (78.6%) demonstrated cost-effectiveness against their respective willingness-to-pay thresholds (all values reported in US dollars), with the majority favoring sintilimab-based regimens over other therapeutic options.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that the sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar regimen is likely cost-effective as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. These findings support considerations for broader insurance coverage of this specific combination therapy within China’s volume-based procurement system. Future research should incorporate real-world data and enhance both the quantity and quality of economic evaluations to strengthen the evidence base.
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.