ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Cost-effectiveness analysis of population-based screening of hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparing ultrasonography with two-stage screening.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Guideline for stratified screening and surveillance of primary liver cancer(2020 Edition)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2021Guideline
- Evaluation of the Combined Application of AFP, AFP-L3%, and DCP for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: A Meta-analysis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: a health economic evaluation.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2026Review
- Real-world 10-year retrospective study of the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer in China.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- External validation of the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index in a Swedish population.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2021Article
- BiomarkersWorld journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
- Treatment and Cost of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Effect of ultrasonography surveillance in patients with liver cancer: a population-based longitudinal study.BMJ open · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of two population-based hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening programs, two-stage biomarker-ultrasound method and mass screening using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS).
methodsIn this study, we applied a Markov decision model with a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon for the general population-based cohorts in an area with high HCC incidence, such as Taiwan. The accuracy of biomarkers and ultrasonography was estimated from published meta-analyses. The costs of surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment were based on a combination of published literature, Medicare payments, and medical expenditure at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The main outcome measure was cost per life-year gained with a 3% annual discount rate.
resultsThe results show that the mass screening using AUS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD39825 per life-year gained, whereas two-stage screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD49733 per life-year gained, as compared with no screening. Screening programs with an initial screening age of 50 years old and biennial screening interval were the most cost-effective. These findings were sensitive to the costs of screening tools and the specificity of biomarker screening.
conclusionMass screening using AUS is more cost effective than two-stage biomarker-ultrasound screening. The most optimal strategy is an initial screening age at 50 years old with a 2-year inter-screening interval.
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.