ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal noninvasive testing for post-treatment confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication and the impact of patient adherence.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial Diagnostic Strategies for Helicobacter Pylori in Patients With Bleeding Peptic Ulcers Undergoing Endoscopy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of screening with polymerase chain reaction forJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Evaluation ofChinese medical journal · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment failure rate for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy is ~20% due to poor patient compliance and increased antibiotic resistance. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing to confirm eradication of H. pylori infection in adults.
methodsDecision-analytic models evaluated the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing (urea breath test [UBT] or monoclonal fecal antigen test [mFAT]) vs no testing (Model 1), and UBT vs mFAT after adjusting for patient adherence to testing (Model 2) in adults who previously received first-line antimicrobial therapy. Patients testing positive received second-line quadruple therapy; no further action was taken for those testing negative or with no testing (Model 1) or for those nonadherent to testing (Model 2). In addition to testing costs, excess lifetime costs and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) due to continuing H. pylori infection were considered in the model.
resultsExpected total costs per patient were higher for post-treatment testing (UBT: US$325.76; mFAT: US$242.12) vs no testing (US$182.41) in Model 1 and for UBT (US$336.75) vs mFAT (US$326.24) in Model 2. Expected QALYs gained per patient were 0.71 and 0.72 for UBT and mFAT, respectively, vs no testing (Model 1), and the same was 0.37 for UBT vs mFAT (Model 2). The estimated incremental costs per QALY gained for post-treatment testing vs no testing were US$82.90-US$202.45 and, after adjusting for adherence, US$28.13 for UBT vs mFAT.
conclusionUniversal post-treatment testing was found to be cost-effective for confirming eradication of H. pylori infection following first-line therapy. Better adherence to UBT relative to mFAT was the key to its cost-effectiveness.
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.