Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevention of Hepatitis C by Screening and Treatment in U.S. Prisons

Open access
He, Tianhua, Li, Kan, Roberts, Mark S., Spaulding, Anne C., Ayer, Turgay, Grefenstette, John J., Chhatwal, Jagpreet·2016·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in U.S. prisoners is high; however, HCV testing and treatment are rare. Infected inmates released back into society contribute to the spread of HCV in the general population. Routine hepatitis screening of inmates followed by new therapies may reduce ongoing HCV transmission. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health and economic effect of HCV screening and treatment in prisons on the HCV epidemic in society. DESIGN: Agent-based microsimulation model of HCV transmission and progression of HCV disease. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Population in U.S. prisons and general community. TIME HORIZON: 30 years. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: Risk-based and universal opt-out hepatitis C screening in prisons, followed by treatment in a portion of patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevention of HCV transmission and associated disease in prisons and society, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and total prison budget. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Implementing risk-based and opt-out screening could diagnose 41,900 to 122,700 new HCV cases in prisons in the next 30 years. Compared with no screening, these scenarios could prevent 5500 to 12,700 new HCV infections caused by released inmates, wherein about 90% of averted infections would have occurred outside of prisons. Screening could also prevent 4200 to 11,700 liver-related deaths. The ICERs of screening scenarios were $19,600 to $29,200 per QALY, and the respective first-year prison budget was $900 to $1150 million. Prisons would require an additional 12.4% of their current health care budget to implement such interventions. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the time horizon, and ICERs otherwise remained less than $50,000 per QALY. LIMITATION: Data on transmission network, reinfection rate, and opt-out HCV screening rate are lacking. CONCLUSION: Universal opt-out HCV screening in prisons is highly cost-effective and would reduce HCV transmission and HCV-associated diseases primarily in the outside community. Investing in U.S. prisons to manage hepatitis C is a strategic approach to address the current epidemic. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m15-0617

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
He, T., Li, K., Roberts, M. S., Spaulding, A. C., Ayer, T., Grefenstette, J. J., & Chhatwal, J.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
164
Issue
2
Pages
84-92
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2174830109
Cited by
167
References
2
FWCI
10.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevention of Hepatitis C by Screening and Treatment in U.S. Prisons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m15-0617
The paper
He, T., Li, K., Roberts, M. S., Spaulding, A. C., Ayer, T., Grefenstette, J. J., & Chhatwal, J. (2016). Prevention of Hepatitis C by Screening and Treatment in U.S. Prisons. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-0617

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.