MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321445793 · doi:10.1002/joa3.12833

Cost‐utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus optimal medical therapy in managing supraventricular tachycardia among Filipinos

2023· article· en· W4321445793 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arrhythmia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in Diabetes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiofrequency ablationCost-effectiveness analysisSupraventricular tachycardiaQuality-adjusted life yearHealth careCost–utility analysisCost analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Cost–benefit analysisCost effectivenessEmergency medicineTachycardiaAblationInternal medicineNursingRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the standard of care in the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). Its cost-effectiveness in an emerging Asian country has not been studied. Objectives: A cost-utility analysis of RFA versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) among Filipinos with SVT was conducted using the public healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: A simulation cohort using a lifetime Markov model was constructed using patient interviews, a review of literature, and expert consensus. Three basic health states were defined: stable, SVT recurrence, and death. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (ICER) was determined for both arms. Utilities for the entry states were derived from patient interviews using the EQ5D-5L tool; utilities for other health states were taken from publications. Costs were assessed from the healthcare payer perspective. A sensitivity analysis was done. Results: Base case analysis showed that RFA versus OMT is both highly cost-effective at 5 years and over a lifetime. RFA at 5 years costs about PhP276,913.58 (USD5,446) versus OMT of PhP151,550.95 (USD2,981) per patient. Discounted lifetime costs were PhP280,770.32 (USD5,522) for RFA, versus PhP259,549.74 (USD5,105) for OMT. There was improved quality of life with RFA (8.1 vs. 5.7 QALYs per patient). The 5-year and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were PhP148,741.40 (USD2,926) and Php15,000 (USD295), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed 56.7% of simulations for RFA fell below a GDP-benchmarked willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Conclusion: Despite the initial higher cost, RFA versus OMT for SVT is highly cost-effective from the Philippine public health payer's perspective.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · 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