The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-Effectiveness of Detecting and Treating Diabetic Retinopathy
Abstract
Objective To determine, from the health insurer's perspective, the cost of preventing vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus through ophthalmologic screening and treatment and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions as compared with that of other medical interventions. Design Computer modeling, incorporating data from population-based epidemiologic studies and multicenter clinical trials. Monte Carlo simulation was used, combined with sensitivity analysis and present value analysis of cost savings. Results Screening and treatment of eye disease in patients with diabetes mellitus costs $3190 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. This average cost is a weighted average (based on prevalence disease) of the cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic eye disease in those with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus ($1996 per QALY), those with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) who use insulin for glycemic control ($2933 per QALY), and those with NIDDM who do not use insulin for glycemic control ($3530 per QALY). Conclusions Our analysis indicates that prevention programs aimed at improving eye care for diabetic persons not only result in substantial federal budgetary savings but are highly cost-effective health investments for society. Ophthalmologic screening for diabetic persons is more cost-effective than many routinely provided health interventions. Because diabetic eye disease is the leading cause of new cases of blindnes…
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
“DR screening programmes have been shown to be cost-effective,26”
From Screening for diabetic retinopathy with artificial intelligence in a primary care setting: a comparative cost analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“From a public health perspective, reduced sensitivity in DR screening results in misdiagnosed patients with referable DR, missing opportunity for timely intervention, and facing a 4.5-fold higher risk of progressing to blindness annually when compared to those who receive appropriate treatment20,21.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“From a public health perspective, reduced sensitivity in DR screening results in misdiagnosed patients with referable DR, missing opportunity for timely intervention, and facing a 4.5-fold higher risk of progressing to blindness annually when compared to those who receive appropriate treatment20,21.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation: A Practical Approach
Doubilet, P., Begg, C. B., Weinstein, M. C., Braun, P., & McNeil, B. J. (1985) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x8500500205 · Cited by 860
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, 1981, Ophthalmology, 88, 583, 10.1016/S0161-6420(81)34978-1 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1979.01020010310003 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1985.01050120030015 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(13)38011-7 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.17.8.909 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32086-4 · DOI
- 10.1145/167293.167823 · DOI
- 10.1097/00005650-199101000-00003 · DOI
- 10.2307/3350062 · DOI
- 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113499 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.6.1.75 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.8.1.S71 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1984.01040030398010 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(84)34336-6 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010243030 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010250031 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1993.03500100088034 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32326-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32085-2 · DOI
- Knatterud GL, 1983, Isr J Med Sci, 19, 424
- Davis MD, 1979, Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 77, 144
- 10.1001/archinte.1989.00390020016004 · DOI
- 10.2337/diab.33.3.271 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1982.03320480047025 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(85)34082-4 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM198807213190306 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.pu.06.050185.000353 · DOI
- 10.1016/0140-6736(92)93219-D · DOI
- 10.1002/hec.4730010110 · DOI
- 10.1017/S026646230001357X · DOI
- 10.1016/S0161-6420(87)33525-0 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1984.03340430032024 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1993.03510140074032 · DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-116-8-660 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1989.03430130071037 · DOI
- Laupacis A, 1992, Can Med Assoc J, 146, 473
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States, 2005-2008
Zhang, X., Saaddine, J. B., Chou, C.-F., Cotch, M. F., Cheng, Y. J., Geiss, L. S., Gregg, E. W., Albright, A. L., Klein, B. E. K., & Klein, R. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1111 · Cited by 1,196
Guidelines on Diabetic Eye Care
Wong, T. Y., Sun, J., Kawasaki, R., Ruamviboonsuk, P., Gupta, N., Lansingh, V. C., Maia, M., Mathenge, W., Moreker, S., Muqit, M. M. K., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.007 · Cited by 839
Self-citationMuñoz, B. (2000) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.118.6.819 · Cited by 521
Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Prevent and Control Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
Li, R., Zhang, P., Barker, L. E., Chowdhury, F. M., & Zhang, X. (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc10-0843 · Cited by 491
Saaddine, J. B. (2008) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.126.12.1740 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Javitt, J. C., & Aiello, L. P.
- Affiliations
- Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Javitt, Jonathan C.
- ORCID
- Javitt, Jonathan C.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1996-01-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 1_Part_2
- Pages
- 164-169
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2020793732
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 14.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1r21ey007744-01, 5r01ey008805-04)
- National Eye Institute (R01-EYO8805, R21 EY07744)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- diabetic retinopathy, cost-effectiveness, ophthalmic screening, diabetes mellitus, blindness prevention, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, quality-adjusted life years, health insurance costs
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Retinopathy, Medicare, Humans, Mass Screening, Population Surveillance, United States, Program Evaluation, Age of Onset, Quality-Adjusted Life Years
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
