Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec;20(6):319-25.
doi: 10.3747/co.20.1438.

Publication patterns of cancer cost-effectiveness studies presented at major conferences

Affiliations

Publication patterns of cancer cost-effectiveness studies presented at major conferences

K K Chan et al. Curr Oncol. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To be useful to policymakers and stakeholders, cost-effectiveness analyses (ceas) should be published in a timely manner and without bias. The aims of the present study were to examine the time between conference abstract presentation and subsequent publication, to determine the factors associated with time to publication, to evaluate potential publication bias, and to examine discrepancies in the results between abstract and publication.

Methods: Abstracts of ceas presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), the American Society of Hematology (ash), and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ispor) between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Time-to-event analysis was performed to assess the timeliness of publication and to examine factors associated with time to publication. Summary statistics were used to assess discrepancies in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) between abstract and publication.

Results: Of 164 abstracts identified, 65 (39.6%) were subsequently published. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year publication rates were 12.8%, 25%, 34.2%, and 40.5% respectively. Abstracts were more likely to be published if presented at asco than at ispor (hazard ratio: 1.94; p = 0.038). There was no direct evidence of publication bias for abstracts with favourable icers. Comparing icers between abstracts and publications, the mean absolute difference was 23.8%; 50% of studies had a change in icer exceeding 10%.

Conclusions: Publication rates for ceas were low, and publication was not timely with respect to informing the decision-making process for funding. Abstract results often differed from publication results and cannot reliably be used in the decision-making process for funding.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analyses; abstracts; publication bias; time to publication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Time from abstract presentation to publication. The solid line represents the Kaplan–Meier plot for time from abstract presentation to manuscript publication. The dashed lines represent the limits of the 95% confidence band.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Publication rates by conference. Each line represents the Kaplan–Meier plot for time from abstract presentation to manuscript publication for a specific conference. asco = American Society of Clinical Oncology; ash = American Society of Hematology; ispor = International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Percentage change in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) from abstract to publication for forty-eight cost–utility analyses. Each bar represents a cost–utility study, and the height of the bar represents the percentage change in icer from abstract to publication. Twenty-three studies reported a decrease, fourteen reported an increase, and eleven reported no change in icer.

References

    1. Smith C, Cowan C, Heffler S, Catlin A. National health spending in 2004: recent slowdown led by prescription drug spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:186–96. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.1.186. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grusenmeyer PA, Wong YN. Interpreting the economic literature in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:196–202. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0738. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Iglehart JK. Medicare and drug pricing. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1590–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr035135. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Halbert RJ, Zaher C, Wade S, Malin J, Lawless GD, Dubois RW. Outpatient cancer drug costs: changes, drivers, and the future. Cancer. 2002;94:1142–50. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10347. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:626–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0807774. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources