ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Atrial Fibrillation Screening Compared with Current Opportunistic Screening in Australian Primary Care: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for adults ≥ 65 years, screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains underutilised in Australia. The absence of guidance on how often to screen has resulted in variable practice and missed opportunities for AF detection. Previous studies have focused on handheld devices rather than 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) devices that are readily available in primary-care settings, and the evidence supporting an annual AF screening programme in Australia is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of an annual, structured, higher‑coverage opportunistic ECG screening approach (annual screening) with current unstructured opportunistic screening (current screening) in older adults in Australia.
methodsA Markov model was developed to evaluate two strategies for adults ≥ 65 years: (1) annual screening using 12-lead ECG and (2) current opportunistic screening. The model included 11 health states capturing AF treatment and outcomes, and simulations were run using monthly cycles. A health system perspective and 10-year time horizon were applied. To account for uncertainty, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1000 iterations was undertaken and the results were assessed against a cost-effectiveness threshold of 28,000 Australian dollars (AU$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Uncertainty was further examined through cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and scenario analyses to test the stability of findings under alternative assumptions.
resultsAnnual screening increased costs by AU$4213 and gained 0.43 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$9797 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 100% of simulations yielded a positive incremental net monetary benefit. Scenario analyses demonstrated that both higher screening costs and less frequent 3-yearly screening were cost-effective in comparison to the current opportunistic screening, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below the cost-effectiveness threshold and positive incremental net monetary benefits in all scenarios.
conclusionA structured annual screening approach for AF is likely to be a cost-effective strategy within the Australian primary-care setting. These findings highlight the benefits of more consistent screening practices for early AF detection and stroke prevention.
Identifiers
42853363What 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.