DLM: Vitamin E (2001)
Citation:
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
Cost-effective analysis of vitamin E supplementation in patients with coronary artery disease, using data for non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), based on findings of CHAOS study.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Non-fatal AMI
- Death from CV
- Non-fatal MI.
Exclusion Criteria:
Description of Study Protocol:
- Cost estimation: Hypothetical treatment with vitamin E for three years, based on a survey of six cardiologists working in six different public hospitals in Australia
- Costs in the US after AMI were based on estimations to treat the population in the CHAOS trial
- Cost of vitamin E was based on retail price.
Data Collection Summary:
Costs of Treatment | Vitamin E-Treated Subjects | Placebo-Treated Subjects | Cost Savings |
Australia |
$1,748
|
$1,875
|
$127
|
US |
$14,995
|
$15,573
|
$578
|
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Summary of Results:
Treatment Costs | Vitamin E | Placebo | Per Patient Cost Savings |
Australia |
$1,748
|
$1,875
|
$127
|
US |
$14,995
|
$15,573
|
$578
|
Author Conclusion:
The use of vitamin E therapy in patients with angiographically-proven atherosclerosis is cost-saving and cost-effective in the Australian and US settings.
Funding Source:
Industry: |
|
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | N/A | |
2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | ??? | |
4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | ??? | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | Yes | |
2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | No | |
3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | No | |
4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | No | |
5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | Yes | |
6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | Yes | |
7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | N/A | |
8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | N/A | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | N/A | |