4.1 Article

Screening for open angle glaucoma:: Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 159-168

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31814b9693

关键词

economic evaluation; cost-effectiveness; systematic review; screening; glaucoma

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [HSRU1, HERU2, HERU1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Chief Scientist Office [HERU1, HSRU1, HERU2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To systematically review current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for open angle glaucoma (OAG). Materials and Methods: Studies that reported both costs and outcomes of alternative screening strategies for OAG were identified by a highly sensitive search of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED, HTA Database), last search December 2005. Data on costs regarding cases and years of visual impairment prevented, cases of blindness prevented, and cases of OAG detected were extracted. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using data provided in the included studies. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. The latest of these was published in 1997. The screening tests and treatments reported in these studies are now not considered to be best practice. Furthermore, data were not reported in sufficient detail to reinterpret the results of the studies in terms of a common outcome measure. Finally, these studies suffered from methodologic weaknesses that further limit their usefulness for decision making. Conclusions: Currently, there is insufficient economic evidence on which to base recommendations regarding screening for OAG. New technologies, potentially suitable as screening devices, and new treatments are available. Further research, both in terms of economic models and conduct of clinical trials with concurrent economic evaluation, may help inform policy makers regarding cost-effectiveness and acceptability of screening for OAG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据