ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic CT versus clinical methods for sarcopenia screening.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunistic CT assessment of psoas muscle attenuation and its association with lumbar osteoporosis in total hip arthroplasty candidates.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven assessment of sarcopenia in orthopedic geriatrics: technical progress and clinical implications.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
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
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic CT for sarcopenia screening compared with standard-of-care clinical screening methods, using a decision-analytic model based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed a decision-analytic model simulating a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old male patients at risk for sarcopenia over a 3-year time horizon from a US healthcare system perspective. The model compared two screening strategies: standard-of-care clinical evaluation per EWGSOP2 guidelines (physical exam + DXA evaluation of lean mass) and opportunistic CT as measures of muscle mass and quality. Model inputs-including screening sensitivities/specificities, costs, utility values, and probabilities of cardiovascular complications-were derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of findings across variable inputs.
resultsOpportunistic CT was the favored strategy, with lower costs ($845 vs. $1,295), comparable effectiveness (0.87 QALYs), and higher net monetary benefit ($86,037 vs. $85,588) relative to the standard-of-care strategy. The standard-of-care strategy's ICER was $47.7 million per QALY, exceeding our willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis across 100,000 simulations demonstrated that opportunistic CT was favored across all tested willingness-to-pay thresholds up to $200,000.
conclusionOpportunistic CT is a cost-effective strategy for sarcopenia screening, offering similar effectiveness at a lower cost compared to the standard-of-care approach. By leveraging existing imaging studies, opportunistic CT screening has the potential to enhance early detection and decrease the underdiagnosis of sarcopenia while also reducing the burden of additional DXA scans and clinical visits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41266853What 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.