ArticleBMC health services research2024
Economic impact case study of a wearable medical device for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. 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.
- Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcuPebble SA100 ('AcuPebble') is a novel wearable medical device to diagnose obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). This paper investigates the potential economic impact of the technology in the UK through cost savings analysis, and the redirection of savings into further diagnoses.
methodsA cost comparison study was conducted, comparing AcuPebble to the standard diagnostic approach of home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) and in-clinic polysomnography (PSG), estimating the net benefit value (NBV) and return on investment (ROI). Cohort size was varied to model the effects of volume discounted pricing and staff training costs. To demonstrate the potential for cost savings, data on the healthcare costs of undiagnosed OSA patients were used to quantify the benefit of increased OSA diagnosis rates, as facilitated by AcuPebble.
resultsFor 500 uses of AcuPebble, the NBV in the diagnostic pathway over one year would be in excess of £101,169, increasing to £341,665 for 1,500 uses, £1,263,993 for 5,000 uses, and to £2,628,198 for 10,000 uses, with ROIs of 2.02, 3.03, 5.05, and 6.56, respectively. Given an initial cohort of 1,500 patients, 4,555 extra AcuPebble studies could be completed by redirecting resources from HRP/PSG. Direct cost savings to the NHS from resultant lower undiagnosed rates could be between £24,147 and £4,707,810, based on the cost per use and the percentage of tests that result in a positive diagnosis (varied from 25 to 75% positives).
conclusionsAcuPebble presents an opportunity for substantial healthcare savings, enabling an increase in the number of people tested, diagnosed and treated for OSA.
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.