Cited by 54Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

What determines the cost-effectiveness of diabetes screening?

Open access
Glümer, C., Yuyun, M., Griffin, S., Farewell, D., Spiegelhalter, D., Kinmonth, A. L., Wareham, N. J.·2006·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis The cost-effectiveness of screening for diabetes is unknown but has been modelled previously. None of these models has taken account of uncertainty. We aimed to describe these uncertainties in a model where the outcome was CHD risk.Subjects and methods Our model used population data from the Danish Inter99 study, and simulations were run in a theoretical population of 1,000,000 individuals. CHD risk was estimated using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine, and risk reduction from published randomised clinical trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to provide confidence intervals for modelled outputs. Uncertain parameter values were independently simulated from distributions derived from existing literature and deterministic sensitivity analysis performed using multiple model runs under different strategy choices and using extreme parameter estimates.Results In the least conservative model (low costs and multiplicative risk reduction for combined treatments), the 95% confidence interval of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from pound23,300-82,000. The major contributors to this uncertainty were treatment risk reduction model parameters: the risk reduction for hypertension treatment and UKPDS risk model intercept. Overall cost-effectiveness ratio was not sensitive to decisions about which groups to screen, nor the costs of screening or treatment. It was strongly affected by assumptions about how treatments combine to reduce risk.Conclusions/interpretation Our model suggests that there is considerable uncertainty about whether or not screening for diabetes would be cost-effective. The most important but uncertain parameter is the effect of treatment. In addition to directly influencing current policy decisions, health care modelling can identify important unknown or uncertain parameters that may be the target of future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-006-0248-x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glümer, C., Yuyun, M., Griffin, S., Farewell, D., Spiegelhalter, D., Kinmonth, A. L., & Wareham, N. J.
Affiliations
  • MRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Wareham, N. J.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2006-04-26
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
1536-1544
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2163398628
Cited by
54
References
36
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
13.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hjerteforeningen
  • Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Augustinus Fonden
  • Diabetesforeningen
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
diabetes screening, cost-effectiveness, coronary heart disease risk, uncertainty analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, antihypertensive therapy, UKPDS risk engine
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Monte Carlo Method, Sensitivity and Specificity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review