ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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.
- Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
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
introductionTo address uncertainty about long-term clinical and economic impacts of an accurate dementia diagnosis, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) to memory clinic workup over 5 years.
methodsInverse probability weighting was used to balance covariates between PET (
resultsPET participants lived longer in community (0.26 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.45) and overall (0.15, CI: 0.02 to 0.27), but did not have statistically different health insurance (€703, CI: -3974 to 5045) or total costs including institutionalization (-€8258, CI: -20,622 to 3377). The probability that PET was cost-effective for extending time in community was 76% at a €2530 willingness-to-pay threshold. The probability that PET yielded cost savings and was more effective for extending time alive was 90%. DISCUSSION: Findings in this observational cohort suggest that using amyloid PET in memory clinics may be cost-effective. Highlights: Participants with an amyloid PET in a memory clinic work-up were compared to those without.The amyloid PET group spent more time in community and alive over 5 years of follow-up.Amyloid PET had a 76% chance to cost-effectively extend time in community in uncertainty analysis.
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.