1,720,968 research outputs found
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textOBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with atopic eczema. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies and related papers. Experts in the field. Manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. RESULTS: One RCT comparing moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs comparing potent corticosteroids and one RCT comparing very potent corticosteroids were included. No RCTs or CCTs of mild corticosteroids were eligible. Most RCTs were of poor methodological quality, although two were judged to be of good quality. The only study that compared moderately potent corticosteroids found no significant difference between once- and twice-daily application. For potent corticosteroids, some statistically significant differences in numbers of patients responding to treatment were identified favouring twice-daily treatment, but these were inconsistent between physician and patient assessment and outcomes selected for analysis. Two studies found a significant improvement in some symptoms with once-daily mometasone furoate compared with twice-daily application of a different active compound, while a third study found no significant differences. One good-quality study favoured twice-daily application of fluticasone propionate ointment, while other studies found no significant difference or an improvement in one symptom but not others. The only study comparing very potent corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in comparative clinical response in favour of three-times daily treatment, but no difference in number of patients with at least a good response. There appears to be little difference in the frequency or severity of short-term events, however data are limited. No published economic evaluations were identified. Given findings on clinical effectiveness, where outcomes from the comparators are similar, the relative cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent application of topical corticosteroids becomes a case of cost-minimisation, where the least-cost alternative should be favoured, all else being equal. Topical corticosteroid products included in this review have a wide variation in price; the cost per 30 g/30 ml varies between GBP0.60 and GBP4.88. Specific decisions on the least-cost alternative, between once-daily and more frequent application of products, will be determined by the relative price of the products being compared. Where patients can be appropriately prescribed once-daily treatment of a similarly priced product, a reduction in the quantity of topical corticosteroid used will be expected. However, issues related to pack size for prescribed products and subsequent waste (unused product) could easily erode any potential saving. The potential cost-savings on prescribed products are very small at a patient level; although given the large numbers of patients with atopic eczema, cost savings in theory could be substantial. The presence of specifically marketed 'once-daily' topical corticosteroids, which are relatively expensive (per unit price), may result in additional costs should there be a general recommendation in favour of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids, compared to more frequent use. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is very limited; that available indicates the clinical effectiveness of once-daily and more frequent application of potent topical corticosteroids is very similar, but it does not offer a basis for favouring either option. The cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use will depend on the generalisability of the findings to the specific treatment decision and the relative product prices. The trials included in this review generally refer to moderate to severe atopic eczema, whereas most patients have mild disease, and furthermore most of the included trials report on potent topical corticosteroids (eight of 10 RCTs); therefore the generalisability of the findings is limited. Further research is required on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency corticosteroids, specifically on mild potency products for mild to moderate atopic eczema. Outcomes should include quality of life and compliance. [References: 79
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textThe clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review
Get PDFThe clinical effectiveness literature on treatments for idiopathic SRNS in children is very limited. The available evidence suggests a beneficial effect of ciclosporin on remission rates and of cyclophosphamide on time to remission; however, the strength of the conclusions drawn is limited by the poor quality of the included studies. The other treatments included in this review were each evaluated by only one study, and none found a statistically significant effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically significant difference. The available data on costs and outcomes are sparse and do not permit the reliable modelling of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for SRNS at present. A modelling framework is suggested, should more relevant data become available. A well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin with other treatments in children with SRNS without genetic mutation is require
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textObjectives: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and pegaptanib for subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Data sources: electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2006. Experts in the field were consulted and manufacturers’ submissions were examined.Review methods: the quality of included studies was assessed using standard methods and the clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. A model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and of pegaptanib (separately), compared with current practice or best supportive care, from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Two time horizons were adopted for each model. The first adopted time horizons determined by the available trial data. The second analysis extrapolated effects of treatment beyond the clinical trials, adopting a time horizon of 10 years.Results: the combined analysis of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pegaptanib [0.3 mg (licensed dose), 1.0 mg and 3.0 mg] versus sham injection in patients with all lesion types was reported by three publications (the VISION study). Three published RCTs of ranibizumab were identified (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS), and an additional unpublished RCT was provided by the manufacturer (PIER). Significantly more patients lost less than 15 letters of visual acuity at 12 months when taking pegaptanib (0.3 mg: 70% of patients; 1.0 mg: 71% of patients; 3.0 mg: 65% of patients) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg: 94.3–94.5%; 0.5 mg: 94.6–96.4%) than sham injection patients (55% versus pegaptanib and 62.2% versus ranibizumab) or, in the case of ranibizumab, photodynamic therapy (PDT) (64.3%). The proportion of patients gaining 15 letters or more (a clinically important outcome having a significant impact on quality of life) was statistically significantly greater in the pegaptanib group for doses of 0.3 and 1.0 mg but not for 3.0 mg, and for all ranibizumab groups compared to the sham injection groups or PDT. This was also statistically significant for patients receiving 0.5 mg ranibizumab plus PDT compared with PDT plus sham injection. Pegaptanib patients lost statistically significantly fewer letters after 12 months of treatment than the sham group [mean letters lost: 7.5 (0.3 mg), 6.5 (1.0 mg) or 10 (3.0 mg) vs 14.5 (sham)]. In the MARINA and ANCHOR trials, ranibizumab patients gained letters of visual acuity at 12 months whereas patients with sham injection or PDT lost about 10 letters (p < 0.001) and in the PIER study, ranibizumab patients lost significantly fewer than the sham injection group. Significantly fewer patients receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab deteriorated to legal blindness compared with the control groups. Adverse events were common for both pegaptanib and ranibizumab but most were mild to moderate. Drug costs for 1 year of treatment were estimated as £4626 for pegaptanib and £9134 for ranibizumab. Nondrug costs accounted for an additional £2614 for pegaptanib and £3120 for ranibizumab. Further costs are associated with the management of injectionrelated adverse events, from £1200 to £2100. For pegaptanib compared with usual care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from £163,603 for the 2-year model to £30,986 for the 10-year model. Similarly, the ICERs for ranibizumab for patients with minimally classic and occult no classic lesions, compared with usual care, ranged from £152,464 for the 2-year model to £25,098 for the 10-year model.Conclusions: Patients with AMD of any lesion type benefit from treatment with pegaptanib or ranibizumab on measures of visual acuity when compared with sham injection and/or PDT. Patients who continuedtreatment with either drug appeared to maintain benefits after 2 years of follow-up. When comparing pegaptanib and ranibizumab, the evidence was less clear due to the lack of direct comparison through head-to-head trials and the lack of opportunity for indirect statistical comparison due to heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the two drugs offered additional benefit over the comparators of usual care and PDT but at increased cost. Future research should encompass trials to compare pegaptanib with ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and to investigate the role of verteporfin PDT in combination with these drugs. Studies are also needed to assess adverse events outside the proposed RCTs, to consider the optimal dosing regimes of these drugs and the benefits of re-treatment after initial treatment, and to review costing in more detail. Health state utilities and their relationship with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, the relationship between duration of vision loss and the quality of life and functional impact of vision loss, behavioural studies of those genetically at risk are other topics requiring further research
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies
No full textNo consensus on the indications for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases exists. This systematic review has been undertaken to assess the published evidence for its efficacy and safety and to identify prognostic factors. Studies were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references and contacting investigators. The outcome measures were overall survival, disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost effectiveness, and a qualitative summary of the trends across all studies was produced. Only 30 of 529 independent studies met all the eligibility criteria for the review, and data on 30-day mortality and morbidity only were included from a further nine studies. The best available evidence came from prospective case series, but only two studies reported outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery. The remainder reported outcomes for selected groups of patients: those undergoing hepatic resection or those undergoing curative resection. Postoperative mortality rates were generally low (median 2.8%). The majority of studies described only serious postoperative morbidity, the most common being bile leak and associated perihepatic abscess. Approximately 30% of patients remained alive 5 years after resection and around two-thirds of these are disease free. The quality of the majority of published papers was poor and ascertaining the benefits of surgical resection of colorectal hepatic metastases is difficult in the absence of randomised trials. However, it is clear that there is group of patients with liver metastases who may become long-term disease-free survivors following hepatic resection. Such survival is rare in apparently comparable patients who do not have surgical treatment. Further work is needed to more accurately define this group of patients and to determine whether the addition of adjuvant treatments results in improved survival. British Journal of Cancer (2006
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
