ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Reassessing the Baveno based strategy in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for high-risk varices in cirrhosis.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Aims: The Baveno consensus recommends using liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and platelet count to avoid endoscopy in low-risk patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the Baveno-based selective screening vs. universal screening strategy for high-risk varices (HRV) in a Chinese cACLD cohort. Methods: A state-transition Markov model was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, simulating a cohort of 1,000 patients with cACLD over a five-year horizon. Model inputs were derived from Chinese real-world data, meta-analyses, and national fee schedules. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), bleeding events, and endoscopic volumes. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty. Results: The selective screening strategy yielded additional QALYs gain (3.4780 vs. 3.4452) and higher cost ($581 vs. $512) over 5 years compared with universal screening, resulting in an incremental cost of $2,103.66 per additional QALY gained and sparing 26% of patients from initial endoscopy. This ICER falls below China's per-capita GDP-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, indicating that the selective screening is cost-effective in the Chinese context. Deterministic analysis supported these findings, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that selective screening was the preferred strategy in the majority of simulations. Conclusion: Within China's healthcare context, the Baveno-based selective screening strategy is a cost-effective option for screening of high-risk varices in patients with cACLD, suggesting that it should be considered for widespread implementation on clinical and economic grounds.
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.