The economics of telemedicine for vitreoretinal diseases

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 194-198

  Au, Angela ^a   Gupta, Omesh ^a,b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WILLS EYE HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; macular degeneration; retinal disease and diabetic retinopathy; retinopathy of prematurity; telemedicine and teleophthalmology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BLINDNESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; DIGITAL IMAGING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; RETROLENTAL FIBROPLASIA; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TELEMEDICINE; VITREORETINOPATHY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MACULAR DEGENERATION; OPHTHALMOLOGY; RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 79955050389     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283459508     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Pirbhai A, Sheidow T, Hooper P. Prospective evaluation of digital nonstereo color fundus photography as a screening tool in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139:455-461 (Pubitemid 40379071)
2. Richter GM, Williams SL, Starren J, et al. Telemedicine for retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis: evaluation and challenges. Surv Ophthalmol 2009; 54:671-685.
3. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010; 87:4-14.
4. Jones S, Edwards RT. Diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review of the economic evidence. Diabet Med 2010; 27:249-256.
5. Silva PS, Cavallerano JD, Aiello LM. Ocular telehealth initiatives in diabetic retinopathy. Curr Diab Rep 2009; 9:265-271.
6. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, et al. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J 2002; 324:1434-1437. (Pubitemid 34634237)
7. National Diabetes Fact Sheet, 2007 [database on the Internet]. 2007. http:// www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet07.htm. [Accessed 28 November 2010]
8. Lin DY, Blumenkranz MS, Brothers RJ, Grosvenor DM. The sensitivity and specificity of single-field nonmydriatic monochromatic digital fundus photography with remote image interpretation for diabetic retinopathy screening: a comparison with ophthalmoscopy and standardized mydriatic color photography. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 134:204-213. (Pubitemid 34831824)
9. Maberley D, Walker H, Koushik A, Cruess A. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: a cost-effectiveness analysis. CMAJ 2003; 168:160-164. (Pubitemid 36126778)
10. Gomez-Ulla F, Alonso F, Aibar B, Gonzalez F. A comparative cost analysis of digital fundus imaging and direct fundus examination for assessment of diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health 2008; 14:912-918.
11. Aoki N, Dunn K, Fukui T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of telemedicine to evaluate diabetic retinopathy in a prison population. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:1095-1101. (Pubitemid 38579772)
12. Whited JD, Datta SK, Aiello LM, et al. A modeled economic analysis of a digital tele-ophthalmology system as used by three federal healthcare agencies for detecting proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health 2005; 11:641-651. (Pubitemid 43227819)
13. Fleming AD, Goatman KA, Philip S, et al. Automated grading for diabetic retinopathy: a large-scale audit using arbitration by clinical experts. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94:1606-1610.
14. Philip S, Fleming AD, Goatman KA, et al. The efficacy of automated 'disease/ no disease' grading for diabetic retinopathy in a systematic screening programme. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91:1512-1517. (Pubitemid 350044057)
15. Scotland GS, McNamee P, Philip S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of implementing automated grading within the national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy in Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91:1518-1523. (Pubitemid 350044058)
16. Scotland GS, McNamee P, Fleming AD, et al. Costs and consequences of automated algorithms versus manual grading for the detection of referable diabetic retinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94:712-719.
17. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatment for threshold retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics 1999; 104:e47.
18. Jackson KM, Scott KE, Graff Zivin J, et al. Cost-utility analysis of telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity management. Arch Ophthalmol 2008; 126:493-499. (Pubitemid 351549840)
19. Castillo-Riquelme MC, Lord J, Moseley MJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital photographic screening for retinopathy of prematurity in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare 2004; 20:201-213. (Pubitemid 38685952)
20. Brown MM, Brown GC, Brown HC, Peet J. A value-based medicine analysis of ranibizumab for the treatment of subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2008; 115:1039-1045; e5.
21. Ip MS, Scott IU, Brown GC, et al. Antivascular endothelial growth factor pharmacotherapyforage-relatedmaculardegeneration: a report bytheAmerican Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2008; 115:1837-1846.
22. Zimmer-Galler IE, Zeimer R. Feasibility of screening for high-risk age-related macular degeneration with an Internet-based automated fundus camera. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2005; 36:228-236. (Pubitemid 40733770)
23. Loewenstein A, Ferencz JR, Lang Y, et al. Toward earlier detection of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: multicenter evaluation of a preferential hyperacuity perimeter designed as a home device. Retina 2010; 30:1058-1064.
24. The Retina Group of Washington. The Retina Group ofWashington Introduces the NewStandard toCombat Vision Loss. 2010 Oct 26.www.retinagroup.org/ docs/RGWForeSeeHome10-26-10.pdf. [Accessed 17 January 2011]