This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by König, H.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Barry, J.-C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by König, H.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Barry, J.-C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ophthalmology

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 4 April 2002, pp. e59

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE

Economic Evaluation of Different Methods of Screening for Amblyopia in Kindergarten

Hans-Helmut König, MD, MPH* and Jean-Cyriaque Barry, MD{ddagger}

* Department of Health Economics, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
{ddagger} Department of Ophthalmology II, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

--> Objective. To compare the cost-effectiveness of 5 methods of screening for untreated amblyopia in kindergarten from a third-party-payer perspective: A) uncorrected monocular visual acuity testing with pass threshold >=0.5 (20/40) and <=1 line difference between eyes; B) same as A, but pass threshold >=0.6 (20/32); C) same as A, plus cover tests and examination of eye motility and head posture; D) same as C, but pass threshold >=0.6 (20/32); and E) refractive screening without cycloplegia using the Nikon Retinomax autorefractor.

Methods. A decision-analytic model was used with a time horizon until diagnostic examination. According to the model, all 3-year-old children were screened in kindergarten with 1 of the screening methods. Children with positive screening results were referred to an ophthalmologist for diagnostic examination. Children with inconclusive screening results were either referred to an ophthalmologist directly (option 1) or rescreened by the same method after 1 year and referred to an ophthalmologist if rescreening was positive or inconclusive (option 2). Screening test characteristics and costs were estimated on the basis of a field study in which 1180 3-year-old children were examined by orthoptists in 121 German kindergartens.

Results. Compared with methods A option 1 (A-1), B-1, C-1, C-2, E-1, and E-2, there was at least 1 other method that was both less costly and more effective. The average costs per detected case were lowest for method A-2 (878 Euro), followed by methods B-2 (886 Euro), D-2 (908 Euro), and D-1 (965 Euro). When these methods were compared with each other, the additional costs per extra case detected were 1058 Euro (B-2 vs A-2), 1359 Euro (D-2 vs B-2), and 13 448 Euro (D-1 vs D-2).

Conclusions. Monocular visual acuity screening with rescreening of inconclusive results had a favorable cost-effectiveness. By adding additional test items, few more cases could be detected. Because of a great proportion of false-negative, false-positive, and inconclusive results, refractive screening was less effective with an unfavorable cost-effectiveness.

Key Words: screening • amblyopia • kindergarten • cost-effectiveness

Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio • CER, cost-effectiveness ratio

Received for publication Sep 14, 2001; Accepted Dec 7, 2001.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
C Williams, K Northstone, R A Harrad, J M Sparrow, and I Harvey
Amblyopia treatment outcomes after preschool screening v school entry screening: observational data from a prospective cohort study
Br. J. Ophthalmol., August 1, 2003; 87(8): 988 - 993.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]