ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015
Economic Value of Improved Accuracy for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Devices for Type 1 Diabetes in Canada.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus.Clinical chemistry · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical Study of a High Accuracy Green Design Blood Glucose Monitor Using an Innovative Optical Transmission Absorbance System.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- A Meal Replacement Program for the Treatment of Obesity: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Swiss Payer's Perspective.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Article
- Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.Clinical chemistry · 2019Review
- Diabetes Technological Revolution: Winners and Losers?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Economic Value of Improved Accuracy for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Devices for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in England.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Continuous Monitoring of Glucose for Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2018Article
- Analysis of the Accuracy and Performance of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Prototype: An In-Silico Study Using the UVA/PADOVA Type 1 Diabetes Simulator.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to simulate and compare clinical and economic outcomes of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) devices along error ranges and strip price.
methodsWe programmed a type 1 diabetes natural history and treatment cost-effectiveness model. In phase 1, using past evidence from in silico modeling validated by the Food and Drug Administration, we associated changes in SMBG error to changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and separately, changes in severe hypoglycemia requiring an inpatient stay. In phase 2, using Markov cohort simulation modeling, we estimated clinical and economic outcomes from the Canadian payer perspective. The primary comparison was a SMBG device with strip price $0.73 Canadian dollars (CAD) and 10% error (exceeding accuracy requirements by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013) versus a SMBG device with strip price $0.60 CAD and 15% error (accuracy meeting ISO 15197:2013). Outcomes for the average patient, were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and budget impact.
resultsAssuming benefits translate into HbA1c improvements only, the ICER with 10% error versus 15% was $11 500 CAD per QALY. Assuming the benefits translate into reduced severe hypoglycemia requiring an inpatient stay only, an SMBG device with 10% error dominated (ie, less costly, more effective) an SMBG device with 15% error. The 3-year budget impact findings ranged from $0.004 CAD per member per month for HbA1c improvements to cost-savings for severe hypoglycemia reductions.
conclusionsFrom efficiency (cost-effectiveness) and affordability (budget impact) payer perspectives, investing in devices with improved accuracy (less error) appears to be an efficient and affordable strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.