FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2071354278> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2071354278 abstract "Design The cost-effectiveness of oral cancer screening programmes in a number of primary care environments was simulated using a decision analysis model. Primary data on actual resource use and costs were collected by case note review in two hospitals. Additional data needed to inform the model were obtained from published costs, from systematic reviews and by expert opinion using the Trial Roulette approach1. The value of future research was determined using 'expected value of perfect information' (EVPI) for the decision to screen and for each of the model inputs. Setting Hypothetical screening programmes conducted in a number of primary care settings. Eight strategies were compared: (A) no screen; (B) invitational screen in general medical practice; (C) invitational screen in general dental practice; (D) opportunistic screen in general medical practice; (E) opportunistic screen in general dental practice; (F) opportunistic high-risk screen in general medical practice; (G) opportunistic high-risk screen in general dental practice; and (H) invitational screen with a specialist. Participants were a hypothetical population over the age of 40 years of age. Main outcome measures The main measures were mean lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of each alternative screening scenario and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to determine the additional costs and benefits of each strategy over another. Results No screening (strategy A) was always the cheapest option. Strategies B, C, E and H were never cost-effective and were ruled out by dominance or extended dominance. Of the remaining strategies, the ICER for the whole population (age 49–79 years) ranged from £15 790 to £25 961 per QALY. Modelling a 20% reduction in disease progression always gave the lowest ICER. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that there is considerable uncertainty in the optimal decision identified by the ICER, depending on both the maximum amount that the UK National Health Service may be prepared to pay and the impact that treatment has on the annual malignancy transformation rate. Overall, however, high-risk opportunistic screening by a general dental or medical practitioner (strategies F and G) may be cost-effective. EVPI were high for all parameters with population values ranging from £8 million to £462 million. The values were significantly higher in males than females, however, but also varied depending upon malignant transformation rate, effects of treatment and willingness to pay. Partial EVPI showed the highest values for malignant transformation rate, disease progression, self-referral and costs of cancer treatment. Conclusions Opportunistic high-risk screening, particularly in general dental practice, may be cost-effective. This screening may be more effectively targeted to younger age groups, particularly 40–60 year olds. There is considerable uncertainty in the parameters used in the model, however, particularly malignant transformation rate, disease progression, patterns of self-referral and costs. Further study is needed on malignant transformation rates of oral, potentially malignant lesions and to determine the outcome of treatment of those lesions. Evidence has been published to suggest that intervention has no greater benefit than 'watch and wait' and, hence, a properly planned randomised controlled trial may be justified. Research is also needed into the rates of progression of oral cancer and on referral pathways from primary to secondary care and their effects on delay and stage of presentation." @default.
• W2071354278 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2071354278 creator A5048523520 @default.
• W2071354278 date "2006-09-01" @default.
• W2071354278 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2071354278 title "To screen or not to screen? Is it worth it for oral cancer?" @default.
• W2071354278 cites W1992217017 @default.
• W2071354278 cites W2015344372 @default.
• W2071354278 cites W2061598819 @default.
• W2071354278 cites W2081911461 @default.
• W2071354278 doi "https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400435" @default.
• W2071354278 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17003802" @default.
• W2071354278 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2071354278 type Work @default.
• W2071354278 sameAs 2071354278 @default.
• W2071354278 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2071354278 countsByYear W20713542782012 @default.
• W2071354278 countsByYear W20713542782013 @default.
• W2071354278 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2071354278 hasAuthorship W2071354278A5048523520 @default.
• W2071354278 hasBestOaLocation W20713542781 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C127454912 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C151913843 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C2781318095 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C64332521 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C104317684 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C112930515 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C127454912 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C144133560 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C151913843 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C162118730 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C185592680 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C18903297 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C2781318095 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C2908647359 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C3019080777 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C512399662 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C55493867 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C64332521 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C71924100 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C86803240 @default.
• W2071354278 hasConceptScore W2071354278C99454951 @default.
• W2071354278 hasLocation W20713542781 @default.
• W2071354278 hasLocation W20713542782 @default.
• W2071354278 hasOpenAccess W2071354278 @default.
• W2071354278 hasPrimaryLocation W20713542781 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W1489783725 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2013906813 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2033100330 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2780146991 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2071354278 hasRelatedWork W3012411836 @default.
• W2071354278 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2071354278 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2071354278 magId "2071354278" @default.
• W2071354278 workType "article" @default.