Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36963042›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Early cost-utility analysis of hepatitis C virus testing for emergency department attendees in France.

Nicolas Noiriel, Jack Williams

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicolas NoirielLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9229-168X
Jack WilliamsDepartment of Health Service Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1331-387X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is currently targeted towards those at high-risk in France. While universal screening was recently rejected, a growing body of research from other high-income countries suggests that HCV testing in emergency departments (ED) can be effective and cost-effective. In the absence of any studies on the effectiveness of HCV testing in ED attendees in France, this study aimed to perform an early economic evaluation of ED-based HCV testing. A Markov model was developed to simulate HCV testing in the ED versus no ED testing. The model captured costs from a French health service perspective, presented in 2020 euros, and outcomes, presented as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over a lifetime horizon. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated as costs per QALYs gained and compared to willingness-to-pay thresholds of €18,592 and €33,817 per QALY. Value of information analyses were also performed. ED testing for HCV was cost-effective at both thresholds when assuming ED prevalence of 1.1%, yielding an ICER of €3,800 per QALY. Testing remained cost-effective when the HCV prevalence amongst ED attendees remained higher than in the general population (0.3%). The maximum value of future research ranged from €10 to €79 million, depending on time horizons and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Our analysis suggests ED-based HCV testing may be cost-effective in France, although there is uncertainty due to the lack of empirical studies available. Further research is of high value, suggesting seroprevalence surveys and pilot studies in French ED settings are warranted.

Identifiers

PMID36963042
PMCPMC10021824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read60
reference markers read3
identifiers read9
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.