SynthesisBMC public health2025
Cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Integrating Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness for Value-Based Prioritisation of COPD Interventions: A Narrative Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
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
Abstract
aimWe aimed to synthesize the current evidence on cost-effectiveness of screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and to meta-analyse the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) to quantify the economic value of different COPD screening strategies on COPD development.
methodsWe searched for publications in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, until December 2024, without any restriction of countries or article type. ICER were retrieved and meta-analysis based on DerSimonian and Laird method was applied to pool ICER across studies.
resultsOf 1,108 originally retrieved papers, 12 articles fulfilled all search criteria which encompassed in total, 1,082,021 participants. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that the pooled ICER obtained from studies that used questionnaires for COPD screening against studies that did not perform any screening was $899.5 (95%CI [-1,903.9, 3,702.9]). The pooled ICER obtained from studies that used spirometry for COPD screening against studies that did not perform any screening was $521.3 (95%CI [116.0, 926.7]). When the analysis was based on studies that evaluated ICERs of the combination of spirometry testing plus questionnaires against no screening for COPD it was observed that the pooled ICER $15,305.8 (95%CI [5,364.2, 25,247.4]).
conclusionDespite variations in screening methods, the findings from this meta-analysis suggest that implementing COPD screening in primary care is cost-effective. It is recommended that policymakers prioritize screening for high-risk groups such as smokers and the elderly, and choose appropriate tools based on local economic conditions.
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.