Cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic kidney disease in the general adult population: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant public health problem, with rising incidence and prevalence worldwide, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Early identification and treatment of CKD can slow its progression and prevent complications, but it is not clear whether CKD screening is cost-effective. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening strategies in general adult populations worldwide, and to identify factors, settings and drivers of cost-effectiveness in CKD screening. Methods: Studies examining the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in the general adult population were identified by systematic literature search on electronic databases (MEDLINE OVID, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) for peer-reviewed publications, hand-searched reference lists and grey literature of relevant sites, focusing on the following themes: (i) CKD, (ii) screening and (iii) cost-effectiveness. Studies comprising health economic evaluations performed for CKD screening strategies, compared with no CKD screening or usual-care strategy in adult individuals, were included. Study characteristics, model assumptions and CKD screening strategies of selected studies were identified. The primary outcome of interest is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CKD screening, in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life-year gained (LYG), expressed in 2022 US dollars equivalent. Results: Twenty-one studies were identified, examining CKD screening in general and targeted populations. The cost-effectiveness of screening for CKD was found to vary widely across different studies, with ICERs ranging from $113 to $430 595, with a median of $26 662 per QALY and from $6516 to $38 372, with a median of $29 112 per LYG. Based on the pre-defined cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the majority of the studies found CKD screening to be cost-effective. CKD screening was especially cost-effective in those with diabetes ($113 to $42 359, with a median of $27 471 per QALY) and ethnic groups identified to be higher risk of CKD development or progression ($23 902 per QALY in African American adults and $21 285 per QALY in Canadian indigenous adults), as indicated by a lower ICER. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening improved if it was performed in older adults, populations with higher CKD risk scores, or when setting a higher albuminuria detection threshold or increasing the interval between screening. In contrast, CKD screening was not cost-effective in populations without diabetes and hypertension (ICERs range from $117 769 to $1792 142, with a median of $202 761 per QALY). Treatment effectiveness, prevalence of CKD, cost of CKD treatment and discount rate were identified to be the most common influential drivers of the ICERs. Conclusions: Screening for CKD is especially cost-effective in patients with diabetes and high-risk ethnic groups, but not in populations without diabetes and hypertension. Increasing the age of screening, screening interval or albuminuria detection threshold, or selection of population based on CKD risk scores, may increase cost-effectiveness of CKD screening, while treatment effectiveness, prevalence of CKD, cost of CKD treatment and discount rate were influential drivers of the cost-effectiveness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».