Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24990117›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2015

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography.

Meryl Darlington, Pascal Gueret, Jean-Pierre Laissy, Antoine Filipovic Pierucci, Hassani Maoulida, Céline Quelen, Ralph Niarra, Gilles Chatellier, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Meryl DarlingtonURC Eco IdF, Paris Health Economics and Health Services Research Unit, AP-HP, Hôtel Dieu, 1 Place du Parvis Notre Dame, 75004, Paris, France, meryl.darlington@urc-eco.fr.
Pascal Gueret
Jean-Pierre Laissy
Antoine Filipovic Pierucci
Hassani Maoulida
Céline Quelen
Ralph Niarra
Gilles Chatellier
Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
Hotel Dieu Hospital · CAHôtel-Dieu de Paris · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FRCentre Pompidou · FRUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy including computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in comparison with invasive conventional coronary angiography (CA) for the detection of significant coronary artery disease from the point of view of the healthcare provider.

methodsThe average cost per CTCA was determined via a micro-costing method in four French hospitals, and the cost of CA was taken from the 2011 French National Cost Study that collects data at the patient level from a sample of 51 public or not-for-profit hospitals.

resultsThe average cost of CTCA was estimated to be 180<euro> (95 % CI 162-206<euro>) based on the use of a 64-slice CT scanner active for 10 h per day. The average cost of CA was estimated to be 1,378<euro> (95 % CI 1,126-1,670<euro>). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA for all patients over a strategy including CTCA triage in the intermediate risk group, no imaging test in the low risk group, and CA in the high risk group, was estimated to be 6,380<euro> (95 % CI 4,714-8,965<euro>) for each additional correctly classified patient. This strategy correctly classifies 95.3 % (95 % CI 94.4-96.2) of all patients in the population studied.

conclusionsA strategy of CTCA triage in the intermediate-risk group, no imaging test in the low-risk group, and CA in the high-risk group, has good diagnostic accuracy and could significantly cut costs. Medium-term and long-term outcomes need to be evaluated in patients with coronary stenosis potentially misclassified by CTCA due to false negative examinations.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLength of StayRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID24990117
OpenAlexW1968149689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.