Trial reportGeneral hospital psychiatry
Economic outcomes of depression screening after acute coronary syndromes: The CODIACS-QoL randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in General hospital psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01993017 (Depression Screening RCT in ACS Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
Depression Screening RCT in ACS Patients: Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Treatment of Patients With Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening for depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and no history of depression.
methodsCost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial enrolling 1500 patients with ACS between 2013 and 2017. Patients were randomized to no screening, screening and notifying the primary care provider (PCP), and screening, notifying the PCP, and providing enhanced depression treatment. Outcomes measured were Healthcare utilization, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
results7.1% of patients screened positive for depressive symptoms. There was no significant difference in usage of mental health services, cardiovascular tests and procedures, and medications. Mean total costs in No Screen group ($7440), in Screen, Notify, and Treat group ($6745), and in Screen and Notify group ($6204). The difference was only significant in the Screen and Notify group versus the No Screen group (-$1236, 95% confidence interval -$2388 to -$96). Because mean QALYs were higher (+0.003 QALY in Screen and Notify; +0.004 QALYs in Screen, Notify, and Treat) and mean total costs were lower in both intervention groups, these interventions were cost-effective. There was substantial uncertainty because confidence intervals around cost differences were wide and QALY effects were small.
conclusionDepression screening strategies for patients with ACS may be modestly 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.