ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Health-economic evaluation of a novel personalized digital avatar-based anemia management software in hemodialysis patients.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and financial impact of an anemia management tool (AMT)-a software system that uses real-time blood volume and hemoglobin monitoring data-for adult patients receiving in-center hemodialysis (HD) in the United States. A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes for 1000 in-center HD patients with and without use of AMT. Clinical input parameters, including hemoglobin stability and dose reduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), were derived from a randomized controlled trial. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated from the Medicare perspective, while a net financial impact analysis (NFIA) estimated provider-level savings based on ESA dose reductions, Quality Incentive Program (QIP)-related payment adjustments, and implementation costs. From the Medicare perspective, AMT yielded a positive NMB of $8419 per patient over a lifetime and remained cost-effective at a threshold of $2443 per patient per year. The NFIA showed an annual per-patient profit of $218. For a dialysis facility with 70 patients, this corresponds to an annual profit of $15,251. In conclusion, AMT is cost-effective from the Medicare perspective and financially beneficial for providers. Broader adoption may be supported by value-based reimbursement mechanisms and risk-sharing agreements to address residual uncertainties.
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.