The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Hybrid Cohort Individual Sampling Natural History Model of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Using Probabilistic Calibration
Abstract
Background Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. It is likely that treatment of AMD at earlier stages is more effective than later treatment; thus, screening for AMD should be considered. The aim of this study was to develop a natural history model of AMD to estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening. Methods A hybrid cohort/individual sampling decision analytic model was developed. Primary data sets, expert elicitation, and data from the literature were used to populate the model. To incorporate joint parameter uncertainty, and to populate unobservable parameters, an innovative form of probabilistic calibration was applied to a range of output parameters. Results In the reference case, annual screening from age 60 y is the most cost-effective option, although this is subject to high levels of uncertainty. Alternative, age-specific utility values show that screening is predicted to be less cost-effective, assuming interventions that reduce progression to wet AMD moderately improve the cost-effectiveness of screening, whereas the addition of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for juxtafoveal or subfoveal wet AMD lesions improves the cost-effectiveness of screening significantly. Conclusions The extent of the uncertainty around the mean results, and the additional resources and possible reorganization of services required to implement screening, indicate that it may be preferable to reduce the level of uncer…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“For more complex models, standard calibration approaches can be applied to identify the best fitting set of inputs, or multiple sets of values, which can then form the basis for uncertainty analysis [18 -21].”
From Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6 (2012) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.1136/bmj.325.7354.1 · DOI
- 10.1136/bjo.87.3.312 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0039-6257(05)80092-X · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.01.018 · DOI
- Krumpaszky HG, 1999, Ophthalmologica, 213, 48, 10.1159/000027393 · DOI
- Interim life tables for England and Wales, 2002, Actuary's Department. UK government [online]
- Klaver CC, 2001, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 42, 2237
- 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.040 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01055-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0002-9394(01)00895-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.10.047 · DOI · Paper page
- Sparrow JM, 1997, British population. Eye, 11, 315
- 10.1001/archopht.1996.01100130669006 · DOI
- Holz FG, 1994, Prognosis and risk factors. Ophthalmology, 101, 1522
- 10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150743009 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140705039 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00509-6 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090090041018 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.122.5.710 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90340-8 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.121.9.1253 · DOI
- 10.1136/bjo.2003.030445 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080080069030 · DOI
- Clinicaltrials.gov., 2008, Open-label posterior juxtascleral injections of anecortave acetate 15 mg dose for long term use in patients with AMD
- 10.1056/NEJMoa042760 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJMoa054481 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJMoa062655 · DOI · Paper page
- Moss SM, 2002, Evaluation of HPV/ LBC cervical screening pilot studies, first report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC
- 10.3310/hta7060 · DOI
- 10.2165/00019053-200321030-00003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/00006982-200306000-00001 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80079-1 · DOI
- Meads C., 2001, Health Technol Assess, 7, 1
- 10.1167/iovs.05-0072 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/archopht.118.1.47 · DOI
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence., 2004, Guides to the Methods of Technology Appraisal (reference N0515)
- 10.1023/A:1019090401655 · DOI
- 10.1258/135581904322987535 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Briggs, A. H., Weinstein, M. C., Fenwick, E. A. L., Karnon, J., Sculpher, M. J., & Paltiel, A. D. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014 · Cited by 711
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Karnon, J., Czoski-Murray, C., Smith, K. J., & Brand, C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- ORCID
- Karnon, Jonathan
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-01-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 304-316
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W1968191569
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- age-related macular degeneration, AMD screening, cost-effectiveness, natural history model, probability calibration, anti-VEGF therapy, visual impairment
- MeSH terms
- Aging, Calibration, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Probability, Cohort Studies, Vision Screening, Disease Progression
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