ArticlePloS one2026
A preliminary cost-utility analysis of routine myasthenia gravis and thyroid dysfunction screening in acquired comitant Esotropia.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine screening for acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR-Ab) and thyroid function tests (TFT) in patients with acquired comitant esotropia (ACE) without overt signs of myasthenia gravis (MG) or thyroid eye disease (TED). A retrospective cost-utility analysis was conducted in 110 patients at a Thai tertiary hospital between 2014 and 2024. A decision tree combined with a 10-year Markov model compared two strategies: no routine screening (symptom-triggered testing) and universal baseline screening with AChR-Ab and TFT. Costs were expressed in 2024 Thai Baht (THB) from a healthcare sector perspective, and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model uncertainty was assessed using one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 simulations, incorporating downstream costs of follow-up, confirmatory evaluation, and treatment. In the base-case analysis incorporating real-world diagnostic accuracy, universal screening yielded higher QALYs (109.56 vs. 105.45) but also higher costs (฿2,826,680 vs. ฿1,653,500), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ฿285,360 per QALY gained. This exceeded Thailand's willingness-to-pay threshold of ฿160,000-200,000 per QALY, indicating that universal screening was not cost-effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that most simulations were located in the northeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, reflecting greater effectiveness with higher cost, with many exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold. Key drivers included MG prevalence, utility loss from undiagnosed MG, and AChR-Ab test cost. TFT screening contributed minimal benefit due to the very low prevalence of thyroid dysfunction. Universal AChR-Ab screening may improve early detection of MG in ACE, but it was not cost-effective under current assumptions. Exploratory targeted screening appeared relatively more efficient, and symptom-triggered thyroid testing may be a more appropriate approach. These findings are preliminary and require validation in larger studies.
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.