May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Cost-effectiveness of the RetCam 120 in Screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Flynn
    Department of Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
  • J.D. Keenan
    Department of Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
  • J.S. Graff Zivin
    Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Flynn, None; J.D. Keenan, None; J.S. Graff Zivin, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 587. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Flynn, J.D. Keenan, J.S. Graff Zivin; Cost-effectiveness of the RetCam 120 in Screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):587.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) is a disease of low birth weight infants that causes significant ocular morbidity. Because there is an effective treatment for ROP, it is important to screen at-risk infants for the disease. Infants are currently screened by individual ophthalmologic exams. Recently, a digital retinal camera known as the RetCam 120 has been studied as a tool for ROP screening. Because non-ophthalmologists could conduct RetCam exams, RetCam might have lower labor costs and be cost-saving. However, because the RetCam has a lower test sensitivity than ophthalmologic exam1, the RetCam might result in more false negative results, rendering it a less effective test than ophthalmologic exam. It is thus unclear if a RetCam screening approach would be as cost-effective as ophthalmologic exams only. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of the RetCam with the current standard of serial ophthalmologic exams. Methods: A decision tree analysis for ROP detection and treatment was performed comparing serial ophthalmologic exams versus a RetCam approach, in which only infants testing positive to at least one of two initial RetCam exams went on to receive ophthalmologic exams. Costs and effects were estimated using data from previous clinical trials, and results were reported in cost per case of blindness prevented. Results: Ophthalmologic exam cost $15,054 per case of blindness prevented, whereas RetCam cost $15,922 per case of blindness prevented. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the RetCam would become more cost-effective than ophthalmologic exam if the cost of the RetCam camera were decreased by one-fourth, or if the RetCam sensitivity were increased to 98%. Conclusion: The ophthalmologic exam approach is more cost effective than the RetCam approach. However, at a lower RetCam camera cost and higher RetCam test sensitivity, the RetCam approach could be more cost-effective than ophthalmologic exams only. 1. Roth DB, D Morales, WJ Feuer, D Hesse, RA Johnson, JT Flynn. Screening for retinopathy of prematurity employing the RetCam 120: sensitivity and specificity. Archives of Ophthalmology 2001; 119:268-272.

Keywords: retinopathy of prematurity • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: hea • imaging/image analysis: clinical 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×