ArticleEJNMMI reports2025
Economic evaluation of [
Article in EJNMMI reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and unmet needs of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness of [¹¹C]Choline PET/CT as first-line imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- MR Pulse Sequences for Parathyroid Adenoma Imaging Using [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Is theLangenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Observational
- Conventional imaging techniques plusFrontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Comparison ofFrontiers in endocrinology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by persistent hypercalcemia caused by parathyroid adenomas. Preoperative localization of hyperfunctional parathyroids is crucial to optimize surgical outcomes. Current standard practice combines cervical ultrasound (CU), [
methodsA Markov model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each imaging strategy. Imaging performance parameters were derived from a cohort of 145 PHPT patients who underwent surgery after all three imaging exams. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the French healthcare system, and utilities were sourced from the literature and validated by experts. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness, while a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) evaluated financial implications of national adoption over three years (2025-2027).
resultsThe average costs per patient were €5175 for CU + MIBI + PET, €5406 for CU + PET, and €5320 for PET alone, with corresponding QALYs of 13.80, 13.81, and 13.82. PET alone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,650/QALY and an incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of 855€ compared to CU + MIBI + PET but offered only marginal QALY gains (+ 0.02), which were not substantially different. Sensitivity analyses revealed PET alone becomes dominant if [99mTc]Tc-MIBI SPECT sensitivity falls below 75.5% or PET costs drop below €632.
conclusion[
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.