ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2024
One-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Ontario, Canada: a model-based cost-utility analysis.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercialization of medical artificial intelligence technologies: challenges and opportunities.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Investigating tissue factor pathway inhibitor and other protease and protease inhibitors and their association with major adverse aortic events in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening programs for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are not available in Canada. We sought to determine the effectiveness and costutility of AAA screening in Ontario.
methodsWe compared one-time ultrasonography-based AAA screening for people aged 65 years to no screening using a fully probabilistic Markov model with a lifetime horizon. We estimated life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), AAA-related deaths, number needed to screen to prevent 1 AAA-related death and costs (in Canadian dollars) from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health. We retrieved model inputs from literature, Statistics Canada, and the Ontario Case Costing Initiative.
resultsScreening reduced AAA-related deaths by 84.9% among males and 81.0% among females. Compared with no screening, screening resulted in 0.04 (18.96 v. 18.92) additional life-years and 0.04 (14.95 v. 14.91) additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $80 per person among males. Among females, screening resulted in 0.02 (21.25 v. 21.23) additional life-years and 0.01 (16.20 v. 16.19) additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $11 per person. At a willingness-to-pay of $50 000 per year, screening was cost-effective in 84% (males) and 90% (females) of model iterations. Screening was increasingly cost-effective with higher AAA prevalence.
interpretationScreening for AAA among people aged 65 years in Ontario was associated with fewer AAA-related deaths and favourable cost-effectiveness. To maximize QALY gains per dollar spent and AAA-related deaths prevented, AAA screening programs should be designed to ensure that populations with high prevalence of AAA participate.
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.