Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Recent Economic Evaluations.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Zixuan Jin, Joshua Rothwell, Ka Keat Lim
{"title":"Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Recent Economic Evaluations.","authors":"Zixuan Jin, Joshua Rothwell, Ka Keat Lim","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine recent economic evaluations and understand whether any type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) screening designs may represent better value for money and to rate their methodological qualities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched 3 concepts (economic evaluations [EEs], T2DM, screening) in 5 databases (Medline, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, and Cochrane) for EEs published between 2010 and 2023. Two independent reviewers screened for and rated their methodological quality (using the Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 32 EEs, a majority were from high-income countries (69%). Half used single biomarkers (50%) to screen adults ≥30 to <60 years old (60%) but did not report locations (69%), treatments for those diagnosed (66%), diagnostic methods (57%), or screening intervals (54%). Compared with no screening, T2DM screening using single biomarkers was found to be not cost-effective (23/54 comparisons), inconclusive (16/54), dominant (11/54), or cost-effective (4/54). Compared with no screening, screening with a risk score and single biomarkers was found to be cost-effective (21/40) or dominant (19/40). The risk score alone was mostly dominant (6/10). Compared with universal screening, targeted screening among obese, overweight, or older people may be cost-effective or dominant. Compared with fasting plasma glucose or fasting capillary glucose, screening using risk scores was found to be mostly dominant or cost-effective. Expanding screening locations or lowering HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose thresholds was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Each EE had 4 to 17 items (median 13/20) on Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended rated \"Yes/Rather Yes.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EE findings varied based on screening tools, intervals, locations, minimum screening age, diagnostic methods, and treatment. Future EEs should more comprehensively report screening designs and evaluate T2DM screening in low-income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To examine recent economic evaluations and understand whether any type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) screening designs may represent better value for money and to rate their methodological qualities.

Methods: We systematically searched 3 concepts (economic evaluations [EEs], T2DM, screening) in 5 databases (Medline, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, and Cochrane) for EEs published between 2010 and 2023. Two independent reviewers screened for and rated their methodological quality (using the Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended).

Results: Of 32 EEs, a majority were from high-income countries (69%). Half used single biomarkers (50%) to screen adults ≥30 to <60 years old (60%) but did not report locations (69%), treatments for those diagnosed (66%), diagnostic methods (57%), or screening intervals (54%). Compared with no screening, T2DM screening using single biomarkers was found to be not cost-effective (23/54 comparisons), inconclusive (16/54), dominant (11/54), or cost-effective (4/54). Compared with no screening, screening with a risk score and single biomarkers was found to be cost-effective (21/40) or dominant (19/40). The risk score alone was mostly dominant (6/10). Compared with universal screening, targeted screening among obese, overweight, or older people may be cost-effective or dominant. Compared with fasting plasma glucose or fasting capillary glucose, screening using risk scores was found to be mostly dominant or cost-effective. Expanding screening locations or lowering HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose thresholds was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Each EE had 4 to 17 items (median 13/20) on Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended rated "Yes/Rather Yes."

Conclusions: EE findings varied based on screening tools, intervals, locations, minimum screening age, diagnostic methods, and treatment. Future EEs should more comprehensively report screening designs and evaluate T2DM screening in low-income countries.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信