Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24088295›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2014

Is it worthwhile to conduct a randomized controlled trial of glaucoma screening in the United Kingdom?

Jennifer Burr, Rodolfo Hernández, Craig Ramsay, Maria Prior, Susan Campbell, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Marion Campbell, Jill Francis, Luke Vale

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Towards better management of glaucoma in India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer BurrSenior Clinical Research Fellow in Health Services Research, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, UK.
Rodolfo Hernández
Craig Ramsay
Maria Prior
Susan Campbell
Augusto Azuara-Blanco
Marion Campbell
Jill Francis
Luke Vale
University of Aberdeen · GBHealth Economics and Outcomes Research (United Kingdom) · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health 04/08/02Medical Research Council G0701759Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the value of conducting a glaucoma screening randomized controlled trial in the UK.

methodsDecision model based economic evaluation and value of information analysis. Model derived from a previous health technology assessment. Model updated in terms of structure and parameter estimates with data from surveys, interviews with members of the public and health care providers and routine sources.

resultsOn average, across a range of ages of initiating screening (40-60 years), glaucoma prevalence (1-5%), screening uptake (30-100%), and the performance of current case finding, screening was not cost-effective at a £30,000 threshold per quality adjusted life year (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). The societal value of removing all uncertainty around glaucoma screening is £107 million at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. For informing policy decisions on glaucoma screening, reducing uncertainty surrounding the NHS and personal social care cost of sight impairment (£74 million) was of most value, followed by reducing uncertainty in test performance (£14 million) and uptake of either screening or current eye care (£8 million each).

conclusionsA glaucoma screening trial in the UK is unlikely to be the best use of research resources. Further research to quantify the costs of sight impairment falling on the NHS and personal social services is a priority. Further development of glaucoma tests and research into strategies to promote the uptake of screening or current eye care such as through the use of a behavioural intervention would be worthwhile.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessGlaucomaHumansIncidenceMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrevalenceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited Kingdomdecision analysishealth policyophthalmologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID24088295
PMCPMC4509868
OpenAlexW2116038231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.