Value-based medicine for glaucoma;"Value-based medicine" bei glaukom

Ophthalmologe

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 223-227

  Hirneiss C ^a   Kampik, A ^a   Neubauer, A S ^a  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Glaucoma; Quality of life; Value based medicine

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GERMANY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GERMANY; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RELATIVE VALUE SCALES;

EID: 77950520385     PISSN: 0941293X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00347-009-2035-9     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Submacular Surgery Trials Research Group (2007) Evaluation of minimum clinically meaningful changes in scores on the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) SST Report Number 19. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14: 205-215.
2. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J (2003) Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 48: 204-223.
3. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S et al (2001) A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes. Int Ophthalmol 24: 123-127.
4. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S (2003) Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the second eye. Ophthalmology 110: 2310-2317.
5. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ et al (2008) Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 92: 569-573.
6. Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH et al (2009) Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma 18: 6-12.
7. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120: 714-720; discussion 829-730.
8. Gupta V, Srinivasan G, Mei SS et al (2005) Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 89: 1241-1244.
9. Hernandez RA, Burr JM, Vale LD (2008) Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24: 203-211.
10. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Tribus C, Kampik A (2006) Value-based medicine in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 103: 493-500.
11. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Welge-Lussen U et al (2003) Measuring patient's quality of life in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 100: 1091-1097.
12. Hirneiss C, Niedermaier A, Kernt M et al (2009) Health-economic aspects of glaucoma screening. Ophthalmologe.
13. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E et al (2000) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 20: 332-342.
14. Hodapp EPR, Anderson DR (1993) Clinical decisions in glaucoma. Mosby, St. Louis.
15. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10: 407-415.
16. Jampel HD, Frick KD, Janz NK et al (2007) Depression and mood indicators in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 144: 238-244.
17. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR et al (2001) The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 108: 1954-1965.
18. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84: 363-371.
19. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 66(Suppl 3): iii40-iii41.
20. Kymes SM, Kass MA, Anderson DR et al (2006) Management of ocular hypertension: a cost-effectiveness approach from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 141: 997-1008.
21. Lee BS, Kymes SM, Nease RF Jr et al (2007) The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases. Ophthalmology.
22. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR et al (2001) Development of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 119: 1050-1058.
23. McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J et al (2007) Impact of Visual Field Loss on Health-Related Quality of Life in Glaucoma The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology.
24. Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O et al (2003) Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma 12: 139-150.
25. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Au Eong KG et al (2005) Utility values in Singapore Chinese adults with primary open-angle and primary angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma 14: 455-462.
26. Severn P, Fraser S, Finch T, May C (2008) Which quality of life score is best for glaucoma patients and why? BMC Ophthalmol 8: 2.
27. Skalicky S, Goldberg I (2008) Depression and quality of life in patients with glaucoma: a cross-sectional analysis using the Geriatric Depression Scale-15, assessment of function related to vision, and the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15. J Glaucoma 17: 546-551.
28. Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Nassar QJ, Mychaskiw MA (2008) Cost-effectiveness of treating ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 115: 94-98.
29. Sun X, Zhang S, Wang N et al (2009) Utility assessment among patients of primary angle closure/glaucoma in China: a preliminary study. Br J Ophthalmol 93: 871-874.
30. Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M (2005) Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 32: 2025-2029.
31. Vaahtoranta-Lehtonen H, Tuulonen A, Aronen P et al (2007) Cost effectiveness and cost utility of an organized screening programme for glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85: 508-518.
32. Von Neumann JMO (1953) Therory of Games and Economic Behavior., 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 15-16.