ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Follow the nevus: the cost-utility of monitoring for growth of choroidal nevi.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of choroidal naevi in Germany: a cross-sectional analysis of the BiDirect study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Factors associated with lost to follow-up and delayed follow-up in patients with choroidal nevus.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Detecting Progression of Melanocytic Choroidal Tumors by Sequential Imaging: Is Ultrasonography Necessary?Cancers · 2020Article
- Predicting Choroidal Nevus Transformation to Melanoma Using Machine Learning.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop a model to evaluate the cost-utility of choroidal nevi monitoring recommendations with varying clinical risk factors.
methodsA Markov model was created to evaluate the cost-utility in cost per quality-adjusted life-year ($/QALY) for monitoring patients with choroidal nevus. This probabilistic model was applied both to a hypothetically monitored and unmonitored group of patients beginning at different ages and with varying clinical risk factors of the nevus. Duration of screening was modeled for the remainder of the patients' life expectancy. Best available clinical data on the prevalence and incidence of choroidal nevi/melanoma, and relative risk of nevus transformation were combined with the initial and downstream costs of screening, downstream costs of melanoma-related mortality, and QALY saved by monitoring, to estimate the best monitoring regimen. Main outcome measures were average $/QALY saved by consensus recommended monitoring scenarios for the duration of a patient's remaining life expectancy in comparison with no follow-up, and the cost-utility of modified regimens.
resultsThe $/QALY of the recommended monitoring scenarios varied substantially based on nevus clinical risk factors, patient age, frequency of follow-up, and objective testing utilized. The $/QALY for the recommended monitoring scenario of a flat nevus without risk factors in a 60-year-old patient was $77 180. The $/QALY for monitoring a nevus with 3 clinical risk factors in a 60-year-old patient was $85 393. The $/QALY values for differently-aged patients were larger, and intermediate degrees of risk factors for nevus growth varied, depending largely upon the specifics of the modeled monitoring scenarios.
conclusionThe average $/QALY of currently recommended monitoring scenarios fall within economically acceptable standards and could provide insight for formulating appropriate clinical strategies. Cost-utility could be enhanced by targeting higher risk groups and considering less frequent monitoring for the lower risk groups.
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.