ArticleBMJ open2025
Health economics evaluation of diagnostic strategies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with reflux symptoms in China: a modelling study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAmerican College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Chinese expert consensus recommended different algorithmic approaches for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are not yet defined. We compared the two recommended diagnostic processes using a Chinese population-based health economics analysis.
methodsOur analysis considered a hypothetical cohort of patients with typical reflux symptoms. We constructed a decision tree model to compare the two recommended diagnostic processes described in ACG clinical guidelines (stratified endoscopy strategy) and Chinese expert consensus (endoscopy-first strategy). The first strategy begins with hazard stratification based on alarm symptoms. Patients with alarm symptoms directly undergo endoscopic examination, while patients without alarm symptoms receive proton pump inhibitors as diagnostic treatment. In the second strategy, all patients with reflux symptoms complete an endoscopic examination. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate a range of cost and probability estimates on costs and health outcomes over a 1-year time horizon from the healthcare system perspective.
resultsThe total expected costs were US$122.51 for the stratified endoscopy strategy and US$150.12 for the endoscopy-first strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing the endoscopy-first strategy with the stratified endoscopy strategy was US$440.39 per additional correct case of GERD. The rates of detecting upper gastrointestinal carcinoma of the two strategies were 0.0088 and 0.0120, and the ICER was US$8561.34.
conclusionsThe use of endoscopy for all patients with reflux symptoms was more effective but with an increased cost compared with the strategy recommended in international guidelines.
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.