ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2020
Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Economic Research Assessing the Value of Early Detection of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of population screening for atrial fibrillation: the STROKESTOP study.European heart journal · 2023Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Atrial Fibrillation Screening Compared with Current Opportunistic Screening in Australian Primary Care: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening programmes across European nations.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Article
- Atrial Fibrillation Screening in the Elderly: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Public Health Policy.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Atrial Fibrillation Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening in Canadian community practice.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Devices.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
- Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population-Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision-Analytic Model.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence on the clinical and cost benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with electrocardiogram (ECG) in asymptomatic adults.
methodsWe adapted a previously published Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of one-time screening for non-valvular AF (NVAF) with a single 12-lead ECG and a 14-day extended screening with a hand-held ECG device (Zenicor single-lead ECG, Z14) compared with no screening. Clinical events considered included ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeds, myocardial infarction, and death. Epidemiology and effectiveness data for extended screening were from the STROKESTOP study. Risks of clinical events in NVAF patients were derived from ARISTOTLE. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, considering a population with undiagnosed NVAF, aged 75 years in the USA. Costs and utilities were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Parameter uncertainty was formally considered via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Structural uncertainty was assessed via scenario analyses.
resultsIn a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients followed over their lifetimes, the number of additional AF diagnoses was 54 with 12-lead ECG and 255 with Z14 compared with no screening. Both screening strategies led to better health outcomes (ischemic strokes avoided: ECG 12-lead, 9.8 and Z14, 42.2; quality-adjusted life-years gained: ECG 12-lead, 31 and Z14, 131). Extended screening and one-time screening were cost effective compared with no screening at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained ($58,728/QALY with ECG 12-lead and $47,949/QALY with Z14 in 2016 US dollars). ICERs remained below $100,000 per QALY in all DSA, most PSA runs, and in all scenario analyses except for a scenario assuming low anticoagulation persistence.
conclusionsOur analysis suggests that, screening the general population at age 75 years for NVAF is cost effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000. Both extended screening and one-time screening for NVAF are expected to provide health benefits at an acceptable cost.
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.