ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies based on Chinese diabetes risk score for pre-diabetes in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Studies have shown that screening for pre-diabetes mellitus (pre-DM) is essential to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies that apply the Chinese Diabetes Risk Score (CDRS) to screen for pre-DM in China. Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was conducted from a social perspective, and the input parameters were obtained from published literature or publicly available data. Two screening strategies for pre-DM based on CDRS were built and compared with the control group to determine the cost-effective strategy. The screening strategy of the control group was screening for pre-DM by fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test in adults undergoing annual health examination and no screening in adults without an annual health examination (status quo). Two screening strategies were strategy 1: screening for pre-DM using CDRS in all adults (including with or without an annual health examination); and strategy 2: supplemental self-screening for pre-DM using CDRS in adults without an annual health examination, based on the status quo. We focus on the cumulative prevalence of T2DM and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio which signifies the cost per case of T2DM prevented. We also evaluated the cost-effectiveness from the health system perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results. Results: The costs a case of T2DM prevented for strategy 1 compared with the control group and strategy 2 were $299.67 (95% CI 298.88, 300.46) and $385.89 (95% CI 381.58, 390.20), respectively. In addition, compared with the control group, the cost of strategy 2 to prevent a case of T2DM was $272.23 (95% CI 271.50, 272.96). Conclusions: Screening for pre-DM using CDRS in all adults was the most cost-effective health policy. We suggest that medical institutions replace FPG with CDRS for pre-DM screening; at the same time, self-screening for pre-DM using CDRS is widely promoted among adults without an annual health examination. There were still some disputes about how CDRS is included in the health examination projects, so strategy 2 should be considered as an alternative screening strategy. Findings provide a reference for the application of the CDRS in pre-DM screening and contribute to T2DM prevention.
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.