ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2021
Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eradication ofHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication using ¹³C urea breath test: addressing the regional post-treatment outcomes.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for rebleeding risk in upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients based on clinical indicators such asFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Modelling Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Chronic Oral Corticosteroids in the UK.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Helicobacter pylori infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Optimizing Benefits-Harms of H. pylori Screen-and-Treat Programs Tailored to the Regional Settings.HelicobacterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of
designCost-effectiveness models compared four strategies: 'test-and-treat' with either UBT or faecal antigen test (FAT), 'endoscopy-based strategy' and 'symptomatic treatment'. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a simulation model in order to identify probabilities and costs associated with relief of dyspepsia symptoms (over a 4-week time horizon) and with prevention of peptic ulcers (over a 10-year time horizon). Clinical and cost inputs to the model were derived from routine medical practice in the UK.
resultsFor relief of dyspepsia symptoms, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€526/success) and FAT (€518/success) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€1317/success) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€1 029/success). For the prevention of peptic ulcers, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€208/ulcer avoided/year) or FAT (€191/ulcer avoided/year) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€717/ulcer avoided/year) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€651/ulcer avoided/year) (1 EUR=0,871487 GBP at the time of the study).
conclusion'Test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT or FAT are the most cost-effective medical approaches for the management of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.