Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31849021›Full record

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.

Mustafa Oguz, Tereza Lanitis, Xiaoyan Li, Gail Wygant, Daniel E Singer, Keith Friend, Patrick Hlavacek, Andreas Nikolaou, Soeren Mattke

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening programmes across European nations.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa OguzEvidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK. mustafa.oguz@evidera.com.
Tereza LanitisEvidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
Xiaoyan LiBristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Gail WygantBristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Daniel E SingerMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Keith FriendBristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Patrick HlavacekPfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Andreas NikolaouEvidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
Soeren MattkeUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USPfizer (United States) · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedAtrial FibrillationCost-Benefit AnalysisElectrocardiographyHumansMass ScreeningQuality-Adjusted Life YearsStrokeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31849021
PMCPMC7347708
OpenAlexW2995324500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.