MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3099274561 · doi:10.2196/13888

Identifying Health Economic Considerations to Include in the Research Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial (the REDUCE-RISK Trial): Systematic Literature Review and Assessment

2020· review· en· W3099274561 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mattias Neyt, Annick Christiaens, Marina Aloi, Lissy de Ridder, Nicholas M. Croft, Sibylle Koletzko, Arie Levine, Dan Turner, Richard K. Russell, Frank M. Ruemmele, Gigi Veereman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEconomic evaluationPopulationRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)MEDLINESystematic reviewAdalimumabInfliximabFamily medicineHealth careIntensive care medicinePediatricsAlternative medicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The REDUCE-RISK trial was set up to compare the effectiveness of weekly subcutaneously administered methotrexate with daily oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine in low-risk Crohn disease (CD) or subcutaneously administered adalimumab (ADA) in high-risk CD in a pediatric population (age 6-17 years). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review to provide input into the research protocol to gather the necessary information to improve the performance of an evidence-based economic evaluation when the trial is finished. METHODS: The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, websites of HTA institutes, CRD's National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE (OVID), and Embase databases were consulted to retrieve (reviews of) relevant economic evaluations. Studies were eligible if they included a pediatric or adult population with inflammatory bowel diseases (CD and ulcerative colitis [UC]) treated with ADA (Humira). There were no restrictions on the comparator. Only economic evaluations expressing outcomes in life years gained or quality-adjusted life years gained were selected. RESULTS: A total of 12 primary studies were identified. None of these studies included a pediatric population because of a lack of supporting trials. The economic evaluations identified in our systematic review indicate that ADA is an appropriate intervention for inclusion in such a trial. From a health economic point of view, it is important to make an incremental analysis comparing such an intervention with standard care and not immediately versus another (expensive) biological treatment. Information on the impact of children's school attendance and parents' productivity is currently lacking in economic evaluations, and none of the underlying trials measured quality of life (QoL) using a generic utility instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The review of the economic literature on ADA for the treatment of patients with CD supports the performance of a trial with biologicals in pediatric patients, including making a distinction according to disease severity. Conducting an economic literature review enabled us to decide which variables should be added to the research protocol from an economic point of view. Measurements for children's and parents' QoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaires), children's school attendance, and parents' productivity (WPAI-CD-CG questionnaire) were added to the research protocol. This will provide support for the calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated in the REDUCE-RISK trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02852694; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02852694.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.351
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.553
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3510.553
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.029
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0130.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→