SynthesisPloS one2015
Cost-Effectiveness of HBV and HCV Screening Strategies--A Systematic Review of Existing Modelling Techniques.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of hepatitis B screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Pooled it
- Is the universal population Hepatitis C virus screening a cost-effective strategy? A systematic review of the economic evidence.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of hepatitis B screening economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- Hepatitis B/C in the countries of the EU/EEA: a systematic review of the prevalence among at-risk groups.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C virus: a systematic review of economic evaluations.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- A crowdsourced intervention to promote hepatitis B and C testing among men who have sex with men in China: study protocol for a nationwide online randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Trial
- Therapeutic and preventive treatment on outcomes of hepatitis B virus induced chronic liver disease with a cost-effectiveness analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Two-Assay Serological Testing Strategies for Anti-HCV Screening in Italian Populations: A Dual Screening Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Implementation of the HepCBMJ open · 2023Article
- Current status of disparity in liver disease.World journal of hepatology · 2022Review
- A cost-effectiveness study of universal screening for hepatitis C virus infection in South Korea: A societal perspective.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Article
- Hepatitis B vaccination and immunotherapies: an update.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2020Review
- Elimination of hepatitis C virus in Germany: modelling the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening strategies.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Modelling the impact of different testing strategies for HCV infection in Switzerland.Journal of virus eradication · 2019Article
- Streamlining the screening cascade for active Hepatitis C in Russia: A cost-effectiveness analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Economic evaluations of HBV testing and treatment strategies and applicability to low and middle-income countries.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Review
- Emerging Trends in Epidemiology of Hepatitis B Virus Infection.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2017Review
- Markov modeling in hepatitis B screening and linkage to care.Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionStudies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are generally heterogeneous in terms of risk groups, settings, screening intervention, outcomes and the economic modelling framework. It is therefore difficult to compare cost-effectiveness results between studies. This systematic review aims to summarise and critically assess existing economic models for HBV and HCV in order to identify the main methodological differences in modelling approaches.
methodsA structured search strategy was developed and a systematic review carried out. A critical assessment of the decision-analytic models was carried out according to the guidelines and framework developed for assessment of decision-analytic models in Health Technology Assessment of health care interventions.
resultsThe overall approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies was found to be broadly consistent for HBV and HCV. However, modelling parameters and related structure differed between models, producing different results. More recent publications performed better against a performance matrix, evaluating model components and methodology.
conclusionWhen assessing screening strategies for HBV and HCV infection, the focus should be on more recent studies, which applied the latest treatment regimes, test methods and had better and more complete data on which to base their models. In addition to parameter selection and associated assumptions, careful consideration of dynamic versus static modelling is recommended. Future research may want to focus on these methodological issues. In addition, the ability to evaluate screening strategies for multiple infectious diseases, (HCV and HIV at the same time) might prove important for decision makers.
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.