Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27770543›Full record

ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2017

Uptake of hepatitis C screening, characteristics of patients tested, and intervention costs in the BEST-C study.

Joanne E Brady, Danielle K Liffmann, Anthony Yartel, Natalie Kil, Alex D Federman, Joseph Kannry, Cynthia Jordan, Omar I Massoud, David R Nerenz, Kimberly A Brown and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Electronic Medical Alerts Increase Screening for Chronic Hepatitis B: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Linkage to specialty care in the hepatitis C care cascade.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Joanne E BradyNORC at the University of Chicago, Public Health Department, Bethesda, MD.
Danielle K LiffmannThe Chartis Group, Chicago, IL.
Anthony YartelCenter for Global Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Natalie KilIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Alex D FedermanIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Joseph KannryIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Cynthia JordanUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.
Omar I MassoudUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.
David R NerenzCenter for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI.
Kimberly A BrownDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI.
Bryce D SmithDivision of Diabetes Translation, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Claudia VellozziDivision of Viral Hepatitis, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
David B ReinNORC at the University of Chicago, Public Health Department, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From December 2012 to March 2014, three randomized trials, each implementing a unique intervention in primary care settings (repeated mailing, an electronic health record best practice alert [BPA], and patient solicitation), evaluated hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody testing, diagnosis, and costs for each of the interventions compared with standard-of-care testing. Multilevel multivariable models were used to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for receiving an HCV antibody test, and costs were estimated using activity-based costing. The goal of this study was to estimate the effects of interventions conducted as part of the Birth-Cohort Evaluation to Advance Screening and Testing for Hepatitis C study on HCV testing and costs among persons of the 1945-1965 birth cohort (BC). Intervention resulted in substantially higher HCV testing rates compared with standard-of-care testing (26.9% versus 1.4% for repeated mailing, 30.9% versus 3.6% for BPA, and 63.5% versus 2.0% for patient solicitation) and significantly higher aRR for testing after controlling for sex, birth year, race, insurance type, and median household income (19.2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.7-38.2] for repeated mailing, 13.2 [95% CI, 3.6-48.6] for BPA, and 32.9 [95% CI, 19.3-56.1] for patient solicitation). The BPA intervention had the lowest incremental cost per completed test ($24 with fixed startup costs, $3 without) and also the lowest incremental cost per new case identified after omitting fixed startup costs ($1691).

conclusionHCV testing interventions resulted in an increase in BC testing compared with standard-of-care testing but also increased costs. The effect size and incremental costs of BPA intervention (excluding startup costs) support more widespread adoption compared with the other interventions. (Hepatology 2017;65:44-53).

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesFemaleHealth Care CostsHepacivirusHepatitis CHepatitis C AntibodiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSerologic TestsHepatitis C Antibodies

Identifiers

PMID27770543
PMCPMC5582998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.