ArticlePloS one2025
Economic evaluation of hypertension screening in Iran using a Markov model.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and purposeHypertension is one of the most common non-communicable diseases in the world and plays a significant role in the occurrence of cardiovascular complications, including coronary heart disease (CHD) and strokes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct an economic evaluation of high blood pressure screening strategies in Iran in 2020.
methodWe did an economic evaluation of 9 blood pressure screening strategies, including screening annually or every two or three years from the ages of 30, 40, or 50, using the Markov model. The Markov model was designed and implemented based on the natural history of cardiovascular disease in the 2020 TreeAge Pro software. The quality-adjusted life years and the average cost of high blood pressure screening and treatment per person were estimated from society's perspective for the lifetime. Input data of the model were derived from published literature, expert opinion, and available data sources.
findingsAll screening interventions were more costly and more effective compared to no screening. Five strategies, including screening every three years from the age of 50, 40, and 30 years and screening every two years and annually from the age of 30, were undominated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for these strategies ranged from $PPP 2,675.20 to 20,466.83. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a cost-effectiveness threshold close to one times the GDP per capita, screening every two or three years from age 30 had the highest cost-effectiveness, with probabilities of 0.522 and 0.44, respectively.
conclusionBased on the findings of the economic evaluation, all screening strategies are more cost-effective compared to no screening, and among the screening strategies, considering about one times the GDP per capita as the cost-effectiveness threshold, a screening strategy every two years, starting at the age of 30, is the most cost-effective strategy.
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.