ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Home Urine Dipstick Screening for Bladder and Kidney Cancer in High-Risk Populations in England: A Microsimulation Study of Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Bladder Cancer Burden in the USA: Population Scenarios for 2040.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTesting high-risk populations for non-visible haematuria may enable earlier detection of bladder cancer, potentially decreasing mortality. This research aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of urine dipstick screening for bladder cancer in high-risk populations in England.
methodsA microsimulation model developed in R software was calibrated to national incidence data by age, sex and stage, and validated against mortality data. Individual risk factors included age, sex, smoking status and factory employment. We evaluated three one-time screening scenarios: (1) current and former smokers of different ages within the 55-70 years range, (2) a mixed-age cohort of smokers aged 55-80 years and (3) individuals aged 65-79 years from high-risk regions. Probabilistic and scenario analyses evaluated uncertainty. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the standard £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold using payer's perspective and 2022 year of evaluation with 3.5% discounting for both costs and effects.
resultsScreening all current and former smokers (scenario 1) and both mixed-age cohorts (scenarios 2 and 3) was not cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000/QALY. Screening at age 58 years had a 33% probability of being cost-effective at £20,000/QALY threshold and a 64% probability at £30,000/QALY threshold. Screening current and former smoking men aged 58 and 60 years was cost-effective, with ICERs of £18,181 and £18,425 per QALY, respectively. Scenario results demonstrated the high impact of assumptions on lead time, diagnostic pathway, and screening efficacy on predictions.
conclusionsScreening smoking men aged 58 or 60 years for bladder cancer using urine dipstick tests may be cost-effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39753833What 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.