ArticlePediatrics2010
Costs and consequences of universal sibling screening for vesicoureteral reflux: decision analysis.
Article in Pediatrics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health services research in urology.World journal of urology · 2011Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOur objective was to evaluate screening for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) among siblings of patients with VUR, in terms of cost, radiation exposure, and number of febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) averted.
methodsWe constructed a Markov model to evaluate 2 competing management options, that is, universal screening (cystographic evaluation of all siblings without symptoms) and usual care (cystographic evaluation of siblings only after fUTIs). Published data were used to inform all model inputs. Costs were estimated by using a societal perspective.
resultsUniversal screening yielded 2980 fUTIs, whereas usual care yielded 6330. Therefore, universal screening for VUR in a cohort of 100,000 siblings 1 year of age without symptoms resulted in the prevention of 1 initial fUTI per 3360 siblings, at an excess cost of $55,600 per averted fUTI, in comparison with usual care. These estimates were heavily dependent on screening age and the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis; prevention of a single fUTI would require screening of 166 siblings 5 years of age and 694 siblings 10 years of age. Similarly, if prophylaxis was ineffective in preventing fUTIs, then up to 10,000 siblings would need to be screened for prevention of a single fUTI.
conclusionsPrevention of a single fUTI would require screening of 30 to 430 siblings 1 year of age without symptoms, at an estimated excess cost of $56,000 to $820,000 per averted fUTI. These estimates are heavily dependent on screening age and the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis.
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.