ArticleBMJ open2021
Cost effectiveness of screening for intracranial aneurysms among patients with bicuspid aortic valve: a Markov modelling study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is common and 7.7%-9.8% of patients with BAV have intracranial aneuryms (IAs) which might lead to a devastating subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). We aimed to evaluate different screening and follow-up strategies using magnetic resonance angiography for IAs among patients with BAV.
methodsA decision-analytic model was built to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of different management strategies from the Chinese healthcare payer's perspective. The evaluated strategies included natural history without screening for possible IAs, regular screening and no follow-up for detected IAs, and regular screening with regular follow-up (Screen strategy/Follow-up strategy). Base case calculation, as well as probabilistic, one-way, and two-way sensitivity analyses, were performed.
resultsAccording to the base case calculation, natural history had the least cost and effectiveness while Every 5 years (y)/Annual gained the highest cost and effectiveness. Every 10y/Biennial was cost effective when compared with Every 10y/Every 5y under the willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥211 743 (US$30 162). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Every 10y/Biennial was superior in 88.3% of the cases when compared with Every 10y/Every 5y. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses proved that Every 10y/Biennial was the dominant strategy under most circumstances.
conclusionsScreening for possible IAs among patients with BAV and follow-up for detected IAs would increase the effectiveness. Every 10y/Biennial was the optimal strategy from the Chinese healthcare payer's perspective.
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.