ArticleBiochemia medica2013
Economic evaluation of different screening alternatives for patients with clinically suspected acute deep vein thrombosis.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review.Blood advances · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic Value of Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio and D-Dimer as Biological Markers of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Presenting with Unilateral Limb Edema.Journal of blood medicine · 2021Article
- The Cost-effective Laboratory: Implementation of Economic Evaluation of Laboratory Testing.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2017Review
- REVIEWING TRANSFERABILITY IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ORIGINATING FROM EASTERN EUROPE.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe examined the cost-effectiveness of the three different D-dimer measurements in the screening of DVT in models with and without calculation of pre-test probability (PTP) score. Moreover, we calculated the minimal cost in DVT detection. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn the group of 192 patients with clinically suspected acute DVT, we examined the three different D-dimer measurements (Innovance D-dimer, Hemosil D-dimer HS and Vidas D-dimer Exclusion II) in combination with and without PTP assessment.
resultsThe diagnostic alternative employing Vidas D-dimer Exclusion II assay without and with PTP calculation gave lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) than the alternative employing Hemosil D-dimer HS assay (0.187 Euros vs. 0.998 Euros per one additional DVT positive patient selected for CUS in model without PTP assessment and 0.450 vs. 0.753 Euros per one DVT positive patient selected for CUS in model with PTP assessment). According to sensitivity analysis, the Hemosil D-dimer HS assay was the most cost effective alternative when one patient was admitted to the vascular ambulance per day. Vidas D-dimer Exclusion II assay was the most cost effective alternative when more than one patient were admitted to the vascular ambulance per day. Cost minimisation analysis indicated that selection of patients according to PTP score followed by D-dimer analysis decreases the cost of DVT diagnosis.
conclusionsICER analysis enables laboratories to choose optimal laboratory tests according to number of patients admitted to laboratory. Results support the feasibility of using PTP scoring and D-dimer measurement before CUS examination in DVT screening.
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.