Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Nov;91(11):1518-23.
doi: 10.1136/bjo.2007.120972. Epub 2007 Jun 21.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing automated grading within the national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy in Scotland

G S Scotland  1 , P McNamee, S Philip, A D Fleming, K A Goatman, G J Prescott, S Fonseca, P F Sharp, J A Olson
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of implementing automated grading within the national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy in Scotland

G S Scotland et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov.

Abstract

Aims: National screening programmes for diabetic retinopathy using digital photography and multi-level manual grading systems are currently being implemented in the UK. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of replacing first level manual grading in the National Screening Programme in Scotland with an automated system developed to assess image quality and detect the presence of any retinopathy.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed and populated using sensitivity/specificity and cost data based on a study of 6722 patients in the Grampian region. Costs to the NHS, and the number of appropriate screening outcomes and true referable cases detected in 1 year were assessed.

Results: For the diabetic population of Scotland (approximately 160,000), with prevalence of referable retinopathy at 4% (6400 true cases), the automated strategy would be expected to identify 5560 cases (86.9%) and the manual strategy 5610 cases (87.7%). However, the automated system led to savings in grading and quality assurance costs to the NHS of 201,600 pounds per year. The additional cost per additional referable case detected (manual vs automated) totalled 4088 pounds and the additional cost per additional appropriate screening outcome (manual vs automated) was 1990 pounds.

Conclusions: Given that automated grading is less costly and of similar effectiveness, it is likely to be considered a cost-effective alternative to manual grading.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Implementation in Scotland is being considered. If this occurs it is likely that there will be some remuneration for the University of Aberdeen, NHS Grampian and the Scottish Executive.

References

    1. Maberly D, Walker H, Koushik A.et al Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: a cost‐effectiveness analysis. JAMC 2003168160–164. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davies R, Roderick P, Canning C.et al The evaluation of screening policies for diabetic retinopathy using simulation. Diab Med 200219762–770. - PubMed
    1. James M, Turner D A, Broadbent D M.et al Cost‐effectiveness analysis of screening for sight threatening diabetic eye disease. BMJ 20003201627–1631. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Javitt J, Aiello L P. Cost‐effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy. Annals of Internal Medicine 1996124164–169. - PubMed
    1. Facey K, Cummins E, Macpherson K.et alOrganisation of services for diabetic retinopathy screening. Glasgow, Health Technology Board for Scotland; 2002, Health Technology Assessment Report 1

Publication types