ArticleBMC health services research2025
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis in South Africa.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- A Targeted Review of Available Data Sources to Support Evidence-Informed Decisions: Implications for Health Technology Assessment in South Africa.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Strengthening kidney care through evidence-informed participatory policymaking.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 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
backgroundMore than 800 million people are affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD) worldwide. In South Africa, the prevalence of CKD increased by 67% between 1999 and 2006. Haemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplant are the three main modalities used for managing end stage kidney disease. The cost of these therapies poses a significant burden to the health care system in South Africa. The aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis from the societal perspective in South Africa.
methodsA Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis. The model was developed in excel and populated with clinical evidence and cost data synthesized from the literature. The costs and outcomes were estimated over a 5-year time-horizon. The outcomes were presented as quality-adjusted life years. Cost effectiveness was estimated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also conducted to assess the robustness of the results. A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the impact of PD and HD over a 5 year period.
resultsThe total discounted costs per patient over 5 years were R788 384 for PD versus R1 227 708 for HD. The incremental cost for providing PD was estimated at -R438 875. The net QALYs for delivering PD compared to HD were estimated at -0.09. Cost effectiveness ratio for PD versus PD was R5 096 154/QALY. At a threshold of R38 500, PD provision has a 79% probability of being cost-effective relative to HD. The INMB was estimated at R328 574 for PD and R322 194 for HD indicating the cost-effectiveness of PD. The budget impact analysis showed that it would cost government approximately R25 billion over 5 years to treat all individuals eligible for KRT under the current scenario of 88% HD and 12% PD.
conclusionsIn South Africa, PD is shown to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of less than R38 500. A PD-preferred policy that considers clinical appropriateness and patients' values should be considered.
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.