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

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.001
Zixuan Jin MPH , Joshua Rothwell , Ka Keat Lim MPharm, MSc, PhD
{"title":"Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Recent Economic Evaluations","authors":"Zixuan Jin MPH ,&nbsp;Joshua Rothwell ,&nbsp;Ka Keat Lim MPharm, MSc, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 32 EEs, a majority were from high-income countries (69%). Half used single biomarkers (50%) to screen adults ≥30 to &lt;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.”</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 6","pages":"Pages 959-974"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301525000191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2型糖尿病筛查:近期经济评估的系统综述
目的:检查最近的经济评估,是否任何2型糖尿病(T2DM)筛查设计可能代表更好的价值,并评价其方法质量。方法:我们在三个数据库(Medline, Embase和EconLit)中系统地检索了2010年至2023年间发表的经济评价(EEs)三个概念(EEs, T2DM,筛查)。两位独立的审稿人筛选并评价了他们的方法质量(使用checextended)。结果:在32例ee中,大多数来自高收入国家(69%)。大多数使用单一生物标志物(54%)筛查≥30岁的成年人。结论:情感表达的结果因筛查工具、间隔、地点、最低筛查年龄、诊断方法和治疗而异。未来的EEs应更全面地报告筛查设计并评估低收入国家的T2DM筛查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Validation and Clinical Meaningfulness of the 18-item National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (NCCN-FACT) Lymphoma Symptom Index (NFLymSI-18) in Patients with Lymphoma. A systematic review of quantitative health preference methods to support value clarification and shared-decision making: A report of an ISPOR special interest group. Author Reply. Eliciting Societal Preferences for Health Equity: Reflections on Health Inequality Aversion in the United States. Impact of Smoothing and Modeling Approach on Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy Estimates.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1