Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24787570›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2014

A comparative effectiveness analysis of visual field outcomes after projected glaucoma screening using SD-OCT in African American communities.

Dana M Blumberg, Reena Vaswani, Eva Nong, Lama Al-Aswad, George A Cioffi

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Why Do People (Still) Go Blind from Glaucoma?Translational vision science & technology · 2015
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dana M BlumbergDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Reena VaswaniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Eva NongColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, United States.
Lama Al-AswadDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
George A CioffiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Columbia University · US

Funding

Innovative Mentoring and MPH Education in Research and Scientific Excellence In CKM1CA156709 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BEGG, MELISSA D, DAVIDSON, KARINA W. · 2010 to 2010
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS KM1 CA 156709NCI NIH HHS KM1 CA156709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the impact on visual function of community glaucoma screening in an African American population using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT).

methodsUsing a Monte Carlo microsimulation model with a 10-year time horizon, we analyzed the efficacy of SD-OCT screening on visual field outcomes in a population of African Americans who are not otherwise seeking office-based care. Outcomes included classification of visual field severity, quality-adjusted life years, and direct health care costs.

resultsAssuming a 60% follow-up rate, screening decreased the prevalence of undiagnosed glaucoma from 75% to 38%, and decreased the prevalence of severe visual field loss in patients with glaucoma from 29.1% to 23.9%. Conversely, screening increased the prevalence of mild visual field loss in patients with glaucoma from 9.2% to 18.7%. From initial screening through confirmatory eye examination, the screening program ("screen only") cost $98 per screened individual, and $2561 per new diagnosis of glaucoma. When considering the costs of initial screening though the resultant treatment, the screening program ("screen and treat") had an average annual cost of $79 and $2138, respectively, over a 10-year time period. The cost of one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by screening, including management and treatment, in comparison with opportunistic case finding, ranged from $46,416 to $67,813.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that community SD-OCT screening in an African American population will minimize glaucoma-related visual morbidity. Ideally, strategies to maximize treatment efficacy through improved medication adherence and improved compliance with follow-up should be identified and implemented before instituting a screening program.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanVisual FieldsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodPrevalenceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsScotomaTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceUnited Statescomparative effectivenessglaucomaMarkov modelscreeningSD-OCT

Identifiers

PMID24787570
PMCPMC4073998
OpenAlexW2085347153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.