Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31674001›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2020

Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.

Ângela J Ben, Jeruza L Neyeloff, Camila F de Souza, Ana Paula O Rosses, Aline L de Araujo, Adriana Szortika, Franciele Locatelli, Gabriela de Carvalho, Cristina R Neumann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ângela J BenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.jornadaben@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4793-9026
Jeruza L NeyeloffHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Camila F de SouzaFaculty of Medicine, Universidade do Vale do Taquari, Lajeado, Brazil.
Ana Paula O RossesDepartment of Social Medicine, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Aline L de AraujoTelessaúde, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Adriana SzortikaOphthalmology Service, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Franciele LocatelliPostgraduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Gabriela de CarvalhoPostgraduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Cristina R NeumannPostgraduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre · BRHospital Moinhos de Vento · BRUnivates · BRUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BRVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Ministério da Saúde 57/2013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform a cost-utility analysis of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening strategies from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.

methodsA model-based economic evaluation was performed to estimate the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained between three DR screening strategies: (1) the opportunistic ophthalmology referral-based (usual practice), (2) the systematic ophthalmology referral-based, and (3) the systematic teleophthalmology-based. The target population included individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 40 years, without retinopathy, followed over a 40-year time horizon. A Markov model was developed with five health states and a 1-year cycle. Model parameters were based on literature and country databases. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model parameters' uncertainty. WHO willingness-to-pay (WHO-WTP) thresholds were used as reference (i.e. one and three times the Brazilian per capita Gross Domestic Product of R$32747 in 2018).

resultsCompared to usual practice, the systematic teleophthalmology-based screening was associated with an incremental cost of R$21445/QALY gained ($9792/QALY gained). The systematic ophthalmology referral-based screening was more expensive (incremental costs = R$4) and less effective (incremental QALY = -0.012) compared to the systematic teleophthalmology-based screening. The probability of systematic teleophthalmology-based screening being cost-effective compared to usual practice was 0.46 and 0.67 at the minimum and the maximum WHO-WTP thresholds, respectively.

conclusionSystematic teleophthalmology-based DR screening for the Brazilian population with T2D would be considered very cost effective compared to the opportunistic ophthalmology referral-based screening according to the WHO-WTP threshold. However, there is still a considerable amount of uncertainty around the results.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrazilDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOphthalmologyState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID31674001
PMCPMC6978298
OpenAlexW2987980974

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.