FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2134658081> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2134658081 endingPage "832" @default.
• W2134658081 startingPage "823" @default.
• W2134658081 abstract "Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine glaucoma assessment and treatment under current eye care visit and treatment patterns and different levels of treatment effectiveness (from randomized trials). Design We compared the costs and benefits of routine glaucoma assessment and treatment compared with no treatment using conservative and optimistic assumptions regarding treatment efficacy and including and excluding prediagnostic assessment costs. Participants and Controls Computer simulation of 20 million people followed from age 50 years to death or age 100 years. Methods With the use of a computer model, we simulated glaucoma incidence, natural progression, diagnosis, and treatment. We defined glaucoma incidence conservatively as a mean deviation of −4 decibels (dB) on visual field testing in either eye for all diagnoses to be both clinically meaningful and unambiguous. We simulated the annual probability of subsequent progression and the quantity of visual field lost when progression occurred. Main Outcome Measures Visual field loss, ophthalmologic and nursing home costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost per QALY gained, and cost per year of sight gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted to 2005 values using a 3% rate. Results Compared with no treatment and when including diagnostic assessment costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine assessment and treatment was $46,000 per QALY gained, assuming conservative treatment efficacy, and $28,000 per QALY gained, assuming optimistic treatment efficacy. Compared with no treatment and when excluding diagnostic assessment costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine assessment and treatment was $20,000 per QALY gained, assuming conservative treatment efficacy, and $11,000 per QALY gained, assuming optimistic treatment efficacy. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the treatment costs and the value of QALY losses assigned to visual field losses. Conclusions Glaucoma treatment was highly cost-effective when the costs of diagnostic assessments were excluded or when we assumed optimistic treatment efficacy. The cost was reasonable and in line with other health interventions even when diagnostic assessment costs were included and assuming conservative efficacy. Financial Disclosure(s) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine glaucoma assessment and treatment under current eye care visit and treatment patterns and different levels of treatment effectiveness (from randomized trials). We compared the costs and benefits of routine glaucoma assessment and treatment compared with no treatment using conservative and optimistic assumptions regarding treatment efficacy and including and excluding prediagnostic assessment costs. Computer simulation of 20 million people followed from age 50 years to death or age 100 years. With the use of a computer model, we simulated glaucoma incidence, natural progression, diagnosis, and treatment. We defined glaucoma incidence conservatively as a mean deviation of −4 decibels (dB) on visual field testing in either eye for all diagnoses to be both clinically meaningful and unambiguous. We simulated the annual probability of subsequent progression and the quantity of visual field lost when progression occurred. Visual field loss, ophthalmologic and nursing home costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost per QALY gained, and cost per year of sight gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted to 2005 values using a 3% rate. Compared with no treatment and when including diagnostic assessment costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine assessment and treatment was $46,000 per QALY gained, assuming conservative treatment efficacy, and $28,000 per QALY gained, assuming optimistic treatment efficacy. Compared with no treatment and when excluding diagnostic assessment costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness of routine assessment and treatment was $20,000 per QALY gained, assuming conservative treatment efficacy, and $11,000 per QALY gained, assuming optimistic treatment efficacy. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the treatment costs and the value of QALY losses assigned to visual field losses. Glaucoma treatment was highly cost-effective when the costs of diagnostic assessments were excluded or when we assumed optimistic treatment efficacy. The cost was reasonable and in line with other health interventions even when diagnostic assessment costs were included and assuming conservative efficacy." @default.
• W2134658081 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5000295823 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5041545254 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5044916363 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5060062241 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5070015133 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5082069424 @default.
• W2134658081 creator A5082428058 @default.
• W2134658081 date "2009-05-01" @default.
• W2134658081 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2134658081 title "The Cost-effectiveness of Routine Office-based Identification and Subsequent Medical Treatment of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma in the United States" @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1548644132 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1789824814 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1973598019 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1974560870 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1976253654 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1991108094 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1993817442 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W1994481100 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2006500266 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2013333151 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2028532700 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2047369879 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2056138279 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2064533456 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2069505685 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2079865862 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2080185087 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2091063199 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2091467743 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2091665329 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2097707096 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2106364918 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2118437016 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2126288352 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2127937793 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2142834800 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2146426237 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2146461887 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2147093603 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2148890166 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2150712216 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2152309687 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2156097108 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2161487737 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2206075217 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2263429888 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W2408121173 @default.
• W2134658081 cites W3202571488 @default.
• W2134658081 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.056" @default.
• W2134658081 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19285730" @default.
• W2134658081 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2134658081 type Work @default.
• W2134658081 sameAs 2134658081 @default.
• W2134658081 citedByCount "66" @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812012 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812013 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812014 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812015 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812016 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812017 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812018 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812019 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812020 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812021 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812022 @default.
• W2134658081 countsByYear W21346580812023 @default.
• W2134658081 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5000295823 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5041545254 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5044916363 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5060062241 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5070015133 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5082069424 @default.
• W2134658081 hasAuthorship W2134658081A5082428058 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C2776058522 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C2778527774 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C2779900020 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C64332521 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C112930515 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C118487528 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C120665830 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C121332964 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C141071460 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C168563851 @default.
• W2134658081 hasConceptScore W2134658081C1862650 @default.

• next