ArticleCancers2022
Diagnostic Workup for Patients with Solid Renal Masses: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence support in MR imaging of incidental renal masses: an early health technology assessment.European radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with solid renal masses, a precise differentiation between malignant and benign tumors is crucial for forward treatment management. Even though MRI and CT are often deemed as the gold standard in the diagnosis of solid renal masses, CEUS may also offer very high sensitivity in detection. The aim of this study therefore was to evaluate the effectiveness of CEUS from an economical point of view.
methodsA decision-making model based on a Markov model assessed expenses and utilities (in QALYs) associated with CEUS, MRI and CT. The utilized parameters were acquired from published research. Further, a Monte Carlo simulation-based deterministic sensitivity analysis of utilized variables with 30,000 repetitions was executed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) is at USD 100,000/QALY.
resultsIn the baseline, CT caused overall expenses of USD 10,285.58 and an efficacy of 11.95 QALYs, whereas MRI caused overall expenses of USD 7407.70 and an efficacy of 12.25. Further, CEUS caused overall expenses of USD 5539.78, with an efficacy of 12.44. Consequently, CT and MRI were dominated by CEUS, and CEUS remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsCEUS should be considered as a cost-effective imaging strategy for the initial diagnostic workup and assessment of solid renal masses compared to CT and MRI.
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.