ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009
Analysis of cost effectiveness of screening Danish men aged 65 for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- APC-PCI complex levels for screening of AAA in patients with peripheral atherosclerosis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2013Trial
- The Viborg Vascular (VIVA) screening trial of 65-74 year old men in the central region of Denmark: study protocol.Trials · 2010Trial
- The Role of Imaging in Health Screening: Screening for Specific Conditions.Academic radiology · 2021Review
- Letter to Editor.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening program using hand-held ultrasound in primary healthcare.PloS one · 2017Article
- Screening Men with Coronary Heart Disease for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Prospective Cohort Study.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Scientific second-order 'nudging' or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: how many life years lost from underuse of the medicare screening benefit?Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
- Cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme in England.The British journal of surgery · 2014Article
- A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Vascular disease: is AAA screening worth the cost?Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of screening men aged 65 for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
designCost effectiveness analysis based on a probabilistic, enhanced economic decision analytical model from screening to death. POPULATION AND
settingHypothetical population of men aged 65 invited (or not invited) for ultrasound screening in the Danish healthcare system. DATA SOURCES: Published results from randomised trials and observational epidemiological studies retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases, and supplementary data obtained from the Danish Vascular Registry. DATA SYNTHESIS: A hybrid decision tree and Markov model was developed to simulate the short term and long term effects of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with no systematic screening on clinical and cost effectiveness outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation were carried out. Results were presented in a cost effectiveness acceptability curve, an expected value of perfect information curve, and a curve showing the expected (net) number of avoided deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm over time after the introduction of screening. The model was validated by calibrating base case health outcomes and expected activity levels against evidence from the recent Cochrane review of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
resultsThe estimated costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained discounted at 3% per year over a lifetime for costs and QALYs was pound43 485 (euro54,852; $71,160). At a willingness to pay threshold of pound30,000 the probability of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm being cost effective was less than 30%. One way sensitivity analyses showed the incremental cost effectiveness ratio varying from pound32,640 to pound66,001 per QALY.
conclusionScreening for abdominal aortic aneurysm does not seem to be cost effective. Further research is needed on long term quality of life outcomes and costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.