Search PubMedSearch

subject

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis: explore 3 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Effectiveness of psychologically informed physical therapy, tendon-specific exercise program and routine physical therapy in prolonged unilateral shoulder pain and symptom correlations with imaging: a single-center, randomized, parallel-group, three-arm study (RESPECT).

BACKGROUND: Shoulder complaints are one of the most common musculoskeletal ailments. Patient-specific characteristics such as obesity, depression and physical labor are established risk factors, whereas imaging findings are common and associations between specific imaging findings and symptomatology is limited. General exercises are considered useful in treatment whereas evidence for specific tendon exercises is lacking. Biopsychosocial model is also recommended, but has not been extensively studied concerning shoulder symptoms. This article describes the study protocol designed to evaluate the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of routine and specific physical therapy (PT) interventions. Imaging is performed for descriptive, longitudinal and imaging-symptom correlation studies. METHODS: The Rehabilitation of Shoulder Pain: Evaluation and Clinical Trial (RESPECT) is a randomized three-arm parallel-group study involving 300 participants aged 20 to 60 years with prolonged unilateral shoulder pain. Participants will receive either routine PT, physiotherapist-guided tendon-specific exercise program or psychologically informed PT. Bilateral shoulder radiographs, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging will be done at the baseline and at 12 and 36 months. Electronic surveys will be completed at the baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months. The primary outcome will be patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) at 12 months, analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline PSFS. DISCUSSION: RESPECT will provide systematic and controlled data regarding different PT interventions in prolonged shoulder symptoms, which is currently limited. Being one of the most common sources of musculoskeletal pain, improved management could reduce symptom-related burden and prolonged functional impairment at individual and population level. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Registration number NCT07235969; Registered November 18th, 2025; Version: 1.0.

Humans

Meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic study of rasagiline versus selegiline in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Given the persistent absence of direct head-to-head trials, this study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rasagiline versus selegiline as early-stage monotherapy for Parkinson's disease (PD), informing clinical selection and healthcare policies in China. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 2026. Focusing on short-term outcomes (10-16 weeks), an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using placebo as a common anchor evaluated symptom improvement (UPDRS total scores) and adverse event (AE) incidence. For economic evaluation, a 2-year Markov model was constructed from a Chinese healthcare-system perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated alongside robust sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (rasagiline: 6; selegiline: 4) were included. The ITC revealed no statistically significant differences between rasagiline and selegiline in short-term symptomatic relief (Mean Difference = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.44], p = 0.203) or AE risk (Odds Ratio = 0.83, 95% CI [0.50, 1.38], p = 0.475). The overall evidence certainty was rated as moderate. Economically, the base-case simulation indicated rasagiline yielded a marginal benefit of 0.0088 QALYs over selegiline but incurred an additional 17,111.10 Yuan. This resulted in an ICER of 1,951,505.55 Yuan/QALY, substantially exceeding the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: Supported by moderate-certainty evidence, rasagiline and selegiline provide comparable short-term efficacy and safety for early-stage PD monotherapy. However, at its current pricing, rasagiline is not cost-effective. Significant price reductions or definitive proof of long-term superiority are required to justify its economic value.

Humans

Measuring economic efficiency in adult intensive care units: A systematic review of methods, metrics, and evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care units (ICUs) consume substantial hospital resources, yet "efficiency" is inconsistently defined and measured. This study systematically reviewed how economic efficiency has been conceptualised and quantified in adult ICUs and appraised the quality of evidence. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 and a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD420251107866), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (2000-August 2025), plus global grey sources. Eligible studies explicitly defined efficiency and reported an efficiency metric/model linking ICU inputs (e.g., staff, beds/capacity, time, consumables, or costs) to outputs/outcomes (e.g., throughput/discharges, length of stay/resource use, risk-adjusted mortality). Dual independent screening and extraction were performed. Study quality was appraised using MMAT, and findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), given heterogeneity. RESULTS: 39 studies (2001-2025) from 17 countries were included, all from high-income or upper-middle-income settings. Four methodological families were identified: (1) frontier modelling (predominantly DEA; occasional SFA/RFDH), (2) benchmarking indicators (risk-adjusted mortality and LOS/resource-use ratios; "efficiency matrix" quadrant classification), (3) cost-outcome evaluations, and (4) operational/process metrics. Across families, variation in decision-making units, input/output selection, and risk adjustment limited comparability; long-term and patient-reported outcomes were absent, and equity considerations were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: ICU efficiency research is feasible but fragmented and often methodologically limited. Standardised definitions, validated risk adjustment, uncertainty quantification, and inclusion of patient-centred and equity-relevant outcomes are needed before efficiency metrics can reliably inform value-based decision making.

Intensive Care Units
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.