Cited by 21Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and Analysis

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

Karnon, Jonathan, Czoski-Murray, Carolyn, Smith, Kevin J., Brand, Christopher·2009·Medical Decision Making

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x08327491

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1136/bmj.325.7354.1 · DOI
  2. 10.1136/bjo.87.3.312 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0039-6257(05)80092-X · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.01.018 · DOI
  5. Krumpaszky HG, 1999, Ophthalmologica, 213, 48, 10.1159/000027393 · DOI
  6. Interim life tables for England and Wales, 2002, Actuary's Department. UK government [online]
  7. Klaver CC, 2001, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 42, 2237
  8. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.040 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01055-2 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/S0002-9394(01)00895-9 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.10.047 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Sparrow JM, 1997, British population. Eye, 11, 315
  13. 10.1001/archopht.1996.01100130669006 · DOI
  14. Holz FG, 1994, Prognosis and risk factors. Ophthalmology, 101, 1522
  15. 10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150743009 · DOI
  16. 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140705039 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00509-6 · DOI
  18. 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090090041018 · DOI
  19. 10.1001/archopht.122.5.710 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90340-8 · DOI
  21. 10.1001/archopht.121.9.1253 · DOI
  22. 10.1136/bjo.2003.030445 · DOI
  23. 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080080069030 · DOI
  24. Clinicaltrials.gov., 2008, Open-label posterior juxtascleral injections of anecortave acetate 15 mg dose for long term use in patients with AMD
  25. 10.1056/NEJMoa042760 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1056/NEJMoa054481 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1056/NEJMoa062655 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Moss SM, 2002, Evaluation of HPV/ LBC cervical screening pilot studies, first report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC
  29. 10.3310/hta7060 · DOI
  30. 10.2165/00019053-200321030-00003 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1097/00006982-200306000-00001 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80079-1 · DOI
  33. Meads C., 2001, Health Technol Assess, 7, 1
  34. 10.1167/iovs.05-0072 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1001/archopht.118.1.47 · DOI
  36. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence., 2004, Guides to the Methods of Technology Appraisal (reference N0515)
  37. 10.1023/A:1019090401655 · DOI
  38. 10.1258/135581904322987535 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 21

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)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
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