MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547724305 · doi:10.1080/03007995.2016.1257977

Systematic literature review of the health economic implications of early detection by screening populations at risk for type 2 diabetes

2016· review· en· W2547724305 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Einarson, Basil G. Bereza, Annabel Acs, R. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesCost effectivenessPsychological interventionMEDLINEDiabetes mellitusScopusCost–benefit analysisIntensive care medicineRisk analysis (engineering)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Undetected/uncontrolled diabetes is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and consequent costs. Early detection through screening identifies patients at risk, allowing for earlier treatment initiation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the economic impact of screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed health economic analyses of screening programs for T2DM/pre-diabetes. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published between 2000 and 2015 in any language. Articles must have reported costs of screening, test/patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Any type of screening (universal, targeted, opportunistic) was accepted. METHODS: Data were extracted from Scopus/Medline/Embase, then tabulated. RESULTS: There were 137 studies identified, 108 rejected; 29 were analyzed. Screening types included 18 universal, 8 targeted and 8 opportunistic. One study screened for pre-diabetes, 16 for T2DM and 12 examined both. Fourteen (48%) reported costs of screening only, 9 (31%) costs of screening combined with interventions and 6 (21%) presented all costs separately. Screening was compared to no screening in 13 studies (45%); screening was cost-effective in 8 (62%), not cost-effective in 4 (31%) and neither in 1 (8%). When comparing different screening methods, 6 found targeted screening was cost-effective compared with universal screening (none found the opposite), 2 found opportunistic superior to universal. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed primary findings. Cost drivers included prevalence of T2DM/pre-diabetes, type of blood test used and uptake of testing. For optimal cost-effectiveness, screening for both T2DM and pre-diabetes should be initiated around age 45-50, with repeated testing every 5 years. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Targeted screening appears to be cost-effective compared to universal screening.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207