Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27650359›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients.

L T Burgers, W K Redekop, M J Al, S K Lhachimi, N Armstrong, S Walker, C Rothery, M Westwood, J L Severens

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

L T BurgersInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ltburgers@gmail.com.
W K RedekopInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M J AlInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
S K LhachimiInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
N ArmstrongKleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK.
S WalkerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
C RotheryCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
M WestwoodKleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK.
J L SeverensInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsNew generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales. METHODS AND

resultsFive models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan.

conclusionThe use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMarkov ChainsModels, EconometricQuality-Adjusted Life YearsState MedicineTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited KingdomCoronary artery diseaseCost-effectivenessCT scannerImagingRadiation

Identifiers

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.