Skip to main content
Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus, 2012;49(3):146–155
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20110823-02Cited by:24

Abstract

Purpose:

To estimate the incremental cost-effective-ness of amblyopia screening at preschool and kindergarten, the costs and benefits of three amblyopia screening scenarios were compared to no screening and to each other: (1) acuity/stereopsis (A/S) screening at kindergarten, (2) A/S screening at preschool and kindergarten, and (3) photoscreening at preschool and A/S screening at kindergarten.

Methods:

A probabilistic microsimulation model of amblyopia natural history and response to treatment with screening costs and outcomes estimated from two state programs was programmed. The probability was calculated that no screening and each of the three interventions were most cost-effective per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and case avoided.

Results:

Assuming a minimal 0.01 utility loss from monocular vision loss, no screening was most cost-effective with a willingness to pay (WTP) of less than $16,000 per QALY gained. A/S screening at kindergarten alone was most cost-effective at a WTP between $17,000 and $21,000. A/S screening at preschool and kindergarten was most cost-effective at a WTP between $22,000 and $75,000, and photoscreening at preschool and A/S screening at kindergarten was most cost-effective at a WTP greater than $75,000. Cost-effectiveness substantially improved when assuming a greater utility loss. All scenarios were cost-effective when assuming a WTP of $10,500 per case of amblyopia cured.

Conclusion:

All three screening interventions evaluated are likely to be considered cost-effective relative to many other potential public health programs. The choice of screening option depends on budgetary resources and the value placed on monocular vision loss prevention by funding agencies.

  • 1.American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines: Amblyopia. San Francisco: Author; 2007.

    > Google Scholar
  • 2.Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ, Marr J. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4–5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008; 12:1–214.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3.White A. Eye Exams for Children: Their Impact and Cost Effectiveness. Prepared for the Vision Council of America. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates; 2004.

    > Google Scholar
  • 4.König HH, Barry JC. Cost-utility analysis of orthoptic screening in kindergarten: a Markov model based on data from Germany. Pediatrics. 2004; 113:e95–e108.10.1542/peds.113.2.e95

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.König HH, Barry JC, Leidl R, Zrenner E. Economic evaluation of orthoptic screening: results of a field study in 121 German kindergartens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:3209–3215.

    > MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6.König HH, Barry JC. Economic evaluation of different methods of screening for amblyopia in kindergarten. Pediatrics. 2002; 109: e59.10.1542/peds.109.4.e59

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7.König HH, Barry JC. Cost effectiveness of treatment for amblyopia: an analysis based on a probabilistic Markov model. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:606–612.10.1136/bjo.2003.028712

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Membreno JH, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Beauchamp GR. A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:2265–2271.10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01286-1

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.Joish VN. Reply to comment. J AAPOS. 2004; 8:74–75.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.Joish VN, Malone DC, Miller JM. A cost-benefit analysis of vision screening methods for preschoolers and school-age children. J AAPOS. 2003; 7:283–290.10.1016/S1091-8531(03)00116-2

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.Gandjour A, Schlichtherle S, Neugebauer A, Russmann W, Lauterbach KW. A cost-effectiveness model of screening strategies for amblyopia and risk factors and its application in a German setting. Optom Vis Sci. 2003; 80:259–269.10.1097/00006324-200303000-00016

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Baltussen R, Naus J, Limburgh H. Cost-effectiveness of screening and correcting refractive errors in school children in Africa, Asia, America and Europe. Health Policy. 2009; 89:201–215.10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.06.003

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Arnold RW, Armitage MD, Gionet EG, et al.The cost and yield of photoscreening: impact of photoscreening on overall pediatric ophthalmic costs. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2005; 42:103–111.

    > LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Longmuir SQ, Pfeifer W, Leon A, Olson RJ, Short L, Scott WE. Nine-year results of a volunteer lay network photoscreening program of 147 809 children using a photoscreener in Iowa. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117:1869–1875.10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.036

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Naser N, Hartmann EE. Comparison of state guidelines and policies for vision screening and eye exams: preschool through early childhood. Paper presented at Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting; Fort Lauderdale, FL; April 27–May 1, 2008.

    > Google Scholar
  • 16.U.S. Census Bureau Population Division. Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex and Age for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008.

    > Google Scholar
  • 17.Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985; 5:157–177.10.1177/0272989X8500500205

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18.Briggs A, Claxton K, Schulpher M. Decision Modeling for Health Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    > Google Scholar
  • 19.Ganley JP, Roberts J. Eye conditions and related need for medical care. Vital Health Stat 11. 1983; 228:1–69.

    > Google Scholar
  • 20.Ciner EB, Dobson V, Schmidt PP, et al.A survey of vision screening policy of preschool children in the United States. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999; 43:445–457.10.1016/S0039-6257(99)00021-1

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Martinez V. Children’s Vision Awareness Study: Quantitative Research Results. Sacramento, CA: Vision Service Plan; 2002.

    > Google Scholar
  • 22.Schmidt PP, Maguire MG, Moore B, et al.Testability of preschoolers on stereotests used to screen vision disorders. Optom Vis Sci. 2003; 80:753–757.10.1097/00006324-200311000-00012

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS1a). A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:268–278.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS2B). A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003; 121:603–611.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS4). A randomized trial of atropine regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:2076–2085.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS5). Treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:895–903.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS3). Randomized trial of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123:437–447.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28.American Medical Association. CPT 2006: Current procedural terminology (standard edition), vol. 17. Florence, KY: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2007.

    > Google Scholar
  • 29.Gray L, Parkinson J. The Essential RBRVS. Salt Lake City, UT: St. Anthoney’s Publishing; 2003.

    > Google Scholar
  • 30.Rein DB, Zhang P, Wirth KE, et al.The economic burden of major adult visual disorders in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006; 124:1754–1760.10.1001/archopht.124.12.1754

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31.O’Hagan A, Stevenson M, Madan J. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA. Health Econ. 2007; 16:1009–1023.10.1002/hec.1199

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32.Prevent Blindness America. The Economic Impact of Vision Problems: The Toll of Major Eye Disorders, Visual Impairment, and Blindness on the US Economy. Chicago: Author; 2007.

    > Google Scholar
  • 33.Bertuzzi F, Orsoni JG, Porta MR, Paliaga GP, Miglior S. Sensitivity and specificity of a visual acuity screening protocol performed with the Lea Symbols 15-line folding distance chart in preschool children. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006; 84:807–811.10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00668.x

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34.Schmidt P, Maguire M, Kulp MT, Dobson V, Quinn G. Random Dot E stereotest: testability and reliability in 3- to 5-year-old children. J AAPOS. 2006; 10:507–514.10.1016/j.jaapos.2006.08.019

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35.Kim AH, Chen J, Ottar-Pfeifer W, et al.Screening for amblyopia in preverbal children with photoscreening photographs: IV. Interobserver variability in photograph grading: origin and method of reduction. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q. 2005; 20:71–80.

    > MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36.Vision in Preschoolers Group. Preschool visual acuity screening with HOTV and Lea symbols: testability and between-test agreement. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:678–683.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37.McGraw P, Winn B, Whitaker D. Reliability of the Snellen chart. BMJ. 1995; 310:1481–1482.10.1136/bmj.310.6993.1481

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38.Huynh SC, Ojaimi E, Robaei D, Rose K, Mitchell P. Accuracy of the Lang II stereotest in screening for binocular disorders in 6-year-old children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:1130–1132.10.1016/j.ajo.2005.06.032

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39.Abrahamsson M, Fabian G, Sjöstrand J. A longitudinal study of a population based sample of astigmatic children: II. The changeability of anisometropia. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1990; 68:435–440.10.1111/j.1755-3768.1990.tb01672.x

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40.Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared with lay screeners in the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:2639–2648.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41.Attebo K, Mitchell P, Smith W. Visual acuity and the causes of visual loss in Australia: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103:357–364.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42.Kvarnstrom G, Jakobsson P, Lennerstrand G. Visual screening of Swedish children: an ophthalmological evaluation. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001; 79:240–244.10.1034/j.1600-0420.2001.790306.x

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43.Stewart-Brown S, Butler N. Visual acuity in a national sample of 10 year old children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985; 39:107–112.10.1136/jech.39.2.107

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44.Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009; 155:21–25.10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.040

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45.Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003; 48:204–223.10.1016/S0039-6257(02)00457-5

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS1b). Two-year follow-up of a 6-month randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123:149–157.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG_ATS2A). A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:2075–2087.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48.Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al.Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:1319–1326.10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.10.041

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49.Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Lee PP, et al.The cost-effectiveness of routine office-based identification and subsequent medical treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:823–832.10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.056

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50.U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, U.S. Medical Care, 1982-84=100-CUUR0000SAM. Available at: http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu. Accessed October 6, 2009.

    > Google Scholar
  • 51.Ying GS, Kulp MT, Maguire M, et al.Sensitivity of screening tests for detecting vision in preschoolers-targeted vision disorders when specificity is 94%. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 85:432–438.

    > Google Scholar
  • 52.Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, et al.Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:637–650.10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.01.022

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53.O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Montmartin J. Inference for the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and cost-effectiveness ratio. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17:339–349.10.2165/00019053-200017040-00004

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54.Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26:781–798.10.2165/00019053-200826090-00008

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55.Willan AR, Lin DY. Incremental net benefit in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001; 20:1563–1574.10.1002/sim.789

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 56.Maxwell WA, Waycaster CR, D’Souza AO, Meissner BL, Hileman K. A United States cost-benefit comparison of an apodized, diffractive, presbyopia-correcting, multifocal intraocular lens and a conventional monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:1855–1861.10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.07.024

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 57.Segre L, Haddrill M, Thompson V. Cost of LASIK Eye Surgery and Other Corrective Procedures. San Diego: Access Media Group LLC; 2009. http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/cost.htm. Accessed November 18, 2009.

    > Google Scholar
  • 58.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine versus patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at age 10 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126:1039–1044.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×