Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596309›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

A province-by-province cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis of one-time birth cohort screening of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Canada.

William W L Wong, Alex Haines, Josephine Wong, Abdullah Hamadeh, Murray D Krahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Hepatitis C Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William W L WongSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, University of Waterloo, PHR4011, 10A Victoria Street S, Kitchener, ON, N2G1C5, Canada. wwlwong@uwaterloo.ca.
Alex HainesToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Josephine WongToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abdullah HamadehSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, University of Waterloo, PHR4011, 10A Victoria Street S, Kitchener, ON, N2G1C5, Canada.
Murray D KrahnToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing chronic hepatitis C is challenging, as the majority of those infected are asymptomatic. Therefore, to ensure treatments are administered before the onset of severe complications, screening is important. In Canada, uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of screening has led to conflicting recommendations. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact of one-time HCV screening. A state-transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact between a risk-based screening strategy (current-practice) and a one-time screening strategy on three different birth-cohorts. Cost and prevalence data were obtained from administrative data. Progression and utility data were based on recent systematic reviews. We used a provincial payer-perspective, life-time time-horizon and a 1.5% discount rate for the cost-effectiveness analysis, and used a 10-year time-horizon and no discounting for the budget-impact analysis. One-time screening strategy would cost more and provide more health benefits than the risk-based screening for all birth cohorts. For those born after 1964, the incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of screening versus current-practice varied from $27,422/QALY to $42,191/QALY across different provinces. One-time screening of the cohort would cost an additional $2 million to $236 million across different provinces. For those born 1945-1964, the ICER of screening versus current-practice varied from $35,217/QALY to $48,197/QALY across different provinces. For the cohort born before 1945, the ICER of screening versus current-practice was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY across all provinces. Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that a one-time HCV screening program for those born after 1945 is cost-effective. Considering the budget impact relative to other funded recommended health services and technologies, HCV screening could be considered affordable.

Indexed as

HepacivirusHepatitis CBirth CohortCanadaCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID37596309
PMCPMC10439170
OpenAlexW4385987169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.