ArticleMDM policy & practice
Targeted versus Universally Offered Screening in Pediatric Emergency Departments: Cost-Effectiveness.
Article in MDM policy & practice. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) comprise 50% of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) diagnosed annually. AYA frequently access emergency departments (EDs) for health care. Thus, the ED could be a strategic venue for the diagnosis and treatment of STIs. Objective: Cost-effectiveness analysis examining screening strategies for Design: Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model. Setting: Six pediatric EDs. Participants: AYA 15 to 21 y of age seeking acute care at pediatric EDs. Interventions: 1) Usual care, 2) targeted screening (using a computerized sexual health survey), and 3) universally offered screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost in 2024 US dollars and effectiveness measured as STIs detected and successfully treated. Secondary effectiveness outcome metric: quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost perspective is the direct health care sector, and the time horizon is lifelong. Results: Targeted screening was the most effective and most costly (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $517 per case detected and successfully treated). In a secondary analysis using QALYs lost for long-term complications of untreated CT/GC, targeted screening had an ICER of $23,320/QALY. In this analysis, usual care was dominated, being more costly and less effective than universally offered screening. In subgroup analyses of female versus male, only cohorts using $/QALY, targeted screening remained highly cost-effective for females ($6,389/QALY) compared with universally offered screening but was not cost-effective in males. Conclusions and Relevance: Targeted screening is a highly cost-effective strategy for detecting and treating STIs in adolescents seeking pediatric ED care compared with universally offered screening, with an ICER of $517 per case detected and treated. When considering quality of life for female- versus male-only subgroups, screening for males becomes less clear.
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.