Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35801001›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022

The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study.

Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Mirjam L Verkleij, Jill Carlton, Anna M Horwood, Maria Fronius, Jan Kik, Frea Sloot, Cristina Vladutiu, Huibert J Simonsz, Harry J de Koning and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam L VerkleijDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jill CarltonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Anna M HorwoodInfant Vision Laboratory, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Maria FroniusGoethe University, Department of Ophthalmology, Child Vision Research Unit, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Jan KikDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frea SlootDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cristina VladutiuUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Huibert J SimonszDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
EUS€REEN Foundation

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Childhood vision screening programmes in Europe differ by age, frequency and location at which the child is screened, and by the professional who performs the test. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness for three countries with different health care structures. We developed a microsimulation model of amblyopia. The natural history parameters were calibrated to a Dutch observational study. Sensitivity, specificity, attendance, lost to follow-up and costs in the three countries were based on the EUSCREEN Survey. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using assumed utility loss for unilateral persistent amblyopia (1%) and bilateral visual impairment (8%). We calculated the cost-effectiveness of screening (with 3.5% annual discount) by visual acuity measurement at age 5 years or 4 and 5 years in the Netherlands by nurses in child healthcare centres, in England and Wales by orthoptists in schools and in Romania by urban kindergarten nurses. We compared screening at various ages and with various frequencies. Assuming an amblyopia prevalence of 36 per 1,000 children, the model predicted that 7.2 cases of persistent amblyopia were prevented in the Netherlands, 6.6 in England and Wales and 4.5 in Romania. The cost-effectiveness was €24,159, €19,981 and €23,589, per QALY gained respectively, compared with no screening. Costs/QALY was influenced most by assumed utility loss of unilateral persistent amblyopia. For all three countries, screening at age 5, or age 4 and 5 years were optimal. Despite differences in health care structure, vision screening by visual acuity measurement seemed cost-effective in all three countries.

Indexed as

Cost-effectivenessICER, incremental cost-effectivenessMISCAN, MIcrosimulation SCreening AnalysisQALYs, quality adjusted life-yearsScreeningVA, visual acuityVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID35801001
PMCPMC9253646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.