ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2018
Cost-effectiveness of pulse-echo ultrasonometry in osteoporosis management.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-component imaging and ultrasound-based tools for the assessment of fracture risk.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Review
- Community-based osteoporosis prescreening using FRAX and portable pulse-echo ultrasound: a pilot study from Western Austria.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Article
- Pulse-echo ultrasound measurement in osteoporosis screening: a pilot study in older patients.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
- The Early Detection of Osteoporosis in a Cohort of Healthcare Workers: Is There Room for a Screening Program?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Cost Assessment Modelling of Treatments for Highly Active Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Participant Perspectives on Pulse-Echo Ultrasound TechnologyIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOsteoporosis is asymptomatic morbidity of the elderly which develops slowly over several years. Osteoporosis diagnosis has typically involved Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) followed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in specialist care. Point-of-care pulse-echo ultrasound (PEUS) was developed to overcome DXA-related access issues and to enable faster fracture prevention treatment (FPT) initiation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two proposed osteoporosis management (POMs: FRAX→PEUS-if-needed→DXA-if-needed→FPT-if-needed) pathways including PEUS compared with the current osteoporosis management (FRAX→DXA-if-needed→FPT-if-needed). MATERIALS AND
methodsEvent-based probabilistic cost-utility model with 10-year duration for osteoporosis management was developed. The model consists of a decision tree for the screening, testing, and diagnosis phase and is followed by a Markov model for the estimation of incidence of four fracture types and mortality. Five clinically relevant patient cohorts (potential primary FPT in women aged 75 or 85 years, secondary FPT in women aged 65, 75, or 85 years) were modeled in the Finnish setting. Generic alendronate FPT was used for those diagnosed with osteoporosis, including persistence overtime. Discounted (3%/year) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the primary outcome. Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2016 value) at per patient and population level, and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers were modeled as secondary outcomes.
resultsPOMs were cost-effective in all patient subgroups with noteworthy mean per patient cost savings of €121/76 (ranges €107-132/52-96) depending on the scope of PEUS result interpretation (test and diagnose/test only, respectively) and negligible differences in QALYs gained in comparison with current osteoporosis management. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers, POMs had 95%-100% probability of cost-effectiveness with willingness to pay €24,406/QALY gained. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Even when assuming a high cost of PEUS (up to €110/test), POMs were cost-effective in all cohorts.
conclusionThe inclusion of PEUS to osteoporosis management pathway was cost-effective.
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.