ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
A cost-utility analysis of
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Approaches to economic evaluations of complex interventions in thailand: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- BRCA Testing in Asian Patients with Ovarian Cancer: Standard Clinical Practice or Mutation Prediction Model?Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- WGS identifies Lynch syndrome (LS) patients and uncovers a large family with MSH2-related LS in Southern Thailand.PloS one · 2026Article
- Opportunistic salpingectomy for prevention of ovarian cancer among the general population.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2025Review
- Germline mutations of 4567 patients with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer spectrum in Thailand.NPJ genomic medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Screening for germline pathogenic Methods: Decision tree and Markov model were utilized to assess cost-utility between the testing vs. no-testing groups from a societal and lifetime perspective and lifetime. We interviewed 264 patients with breast/ovarian cancer and their family members to assess relevant costs and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity (Monte Carlo simulation), and budget impact analyses were done to estimate the outcome under Thailand's Universal Health Coverage scheme. Results: The predicted lifetime cost and Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALY) for those with breast cancer were $13,788 and 10.22 in the testing group and $13,702 and 10.07 in the no-testing group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients was $573/QALY. The lifetime cost for the family members of those with gBRCA was $14,035 (QALY 9.99), while the no-testing family members group was $14,077 (QALY 9.98). Performing gBRCA testing in family members was cost-saving. Conclusion: Cost-utility analysis demonstrated a cost-effective result of gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and cost-saving in familial cascade testing. The result was endorsed in the national health benefits package in 2022. Other middle-income countries may observe the cost-effective/cost-saving aspects in common genetic diseases under their national health schemes.
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.