Cost‐effectiveness of indwelling pleural catheter compared with talc in malignant pleural effusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Malignant pleural effusion is associated with morbidity and mortality. A randomized controlled trial previously compared clinical outcomes and resource use with indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) and talc pleurodesis in this population. Using unpublished quality of life data, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPC compared with talc pleurodesis. METHODS: Healthcare utilization and costs were captured during the trial. Utility weights produced by the EuroQol Group five-dimensional three-level questionnaire and survival were used to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated over the 1-year trial period. Sensitivity analysis used patient survival data and modelled additional nursing time required per week for catheter drainage. RESULTS: Utility scores, cost and QALYs gained did not differ significantly between groups. The ICER for IPC compared with talc was favorable at $US10 870 per QALY gained. IPC was less costly with a probability exceeding 95% of being cost-effective when survival was <14 weeks, and was more costly when 2-h nursing time per week was assumed for catheter drainage. CONCLUSION: IPC is cost-effective when compared with talc, although substantial uncertainty exists around this estimate. IPC appears most cost-effective in patients with limited survival. If significant nursing time is required for catheter drainage, IPC becomes less likely to be cost-effective. Either therapy may be considered as a first-line option in treating malignant pleural effusion in patients without history of prior pleurodesis, with consideration for patient survival, support and preferences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".