ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2020
Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic ultrasound-based radiomics for predicting pathologic upgrade in esophageal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- DNA repair pathways as a novel therapeutic strategy in esophageal cancer: A review study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Review
- The Disease and Economic Burdens of Esophageal Cancer in China from 2013 to 2030: Dynamic Cohort Modeling Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of precision screening for esophageal cancer based on individualized risk stratification in China: Real-world evidence from the ESECC trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China.
methodsA Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model.
resultsOne-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6611.73 per QALY gained
conclusionsOne-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40-49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.
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.