ArticleBMC health services research2025
Glycated haemoglobin versus fasting plasma glucose for type 2 diabetes point of care screening: a decision model cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhereas fasting plasma glucose (FPG) is cheaper, the glycated haemoglobin (HBA1c) test, which does not require fasting, is more convenient for diabetes screening and could be available to patients throughout the day. In this study, we compared the cost effectiveness of the HBA1c test to that of the FPG test when used for point-of-care (POC) screening of type 2 diabetes in a low-resource setting in Uganda.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was conducted for a single screening cycle of 1659 adults aged 35-70 years receiving care at the outpatient department of a general hospital. We constructed a decision analysis model using TreeAge Pro Healthcare v2023, with the cost estimated using an ingredient approach and the effectiveness measured based on the proportion of patients correctly diagnosed with diabetes.
resultsThe unit cost was US$ 6.48 for the HBA1c test and US$ 8.39 for the FPG test. However, a marginally greater percentage of patients were correctly diagnosed according to the FPG test (96.3%) than the HBA1c test (96.2%). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $6.74 for the HBA1c test and $8.39 for the FPG test. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was $989.06 per additional patient correctly diagnosed with diabetes.
conclusionHBA1c POC testing could be a more cost-effective alternative to the FPG POC test for the screening of diabetes in under-served outpatient populations in Uganda and similar contexts.
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.