Surveillance for ocular hypertension: An evidence synthesis and economic evaluation

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 16, Issue 29, 2012, Pages 1-266

  Burr, J M ^a   Botello Pinzon, P ^a   Takwoingi, Y ^b   Hernandez R ^a,c   Vazquez Montes, M ^d   Elders, A ^a   Asaoka, R ^e,f   Banister, K ^a   van der Schoot, J ^g   Fraser, C ^a   King, A ^h   Lemij, H ^g   Sanders, R ⁱ   Vernon, S ^h   Tuulonen, A ^j   Kotecha, A ^e,f   Glasziou, P ^d   Garway Heath, D ^e   Crabb, D ^f   Vale, L ^a,c   Azuara Blanco, A ^a   Perera, R ^d   Ryan, M ^c   Deeks, J ^b   Cook, J ^a   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g ROTTERDAM EYE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^h QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ QUEEN MARGARET HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^j TAMPERE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTAGLANDIN;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PATHWAY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CORNEA THICKNESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC NERVE LESION; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TONOMETER; TREATMENT PLANNING; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 84863639433     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta16290     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bamashmus MA et al. Causes of blindness and visual impairment in the West of Scotland. Eye 2004;18:257-61.
2. Bunce C et al. Leading causes of certification for blindness and partial sight in England & Wales. BMC Public Health 2006;6:8 Mar 2006.
3. Evans J. Causes of blindness and partial sight in England and Wales 1990-1991. London: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; 1995.
4. Burr JM et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1-190.
5. Bonomi L et al. Prevalence of glaucoma and intraocular pressure distribution in a defined population: The Egna-Neumarkt study. Ophthalmology 1998;105:209-15.
6. Hollows FC et al. Intra-ocular pressure glaucoma and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol 1966;50:570-86.
7. Leibowitz HM et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph. Surv Ophthalmol 1980;24:335-610.
8. Sommer A et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans: The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1090-5.
9. Wensor MD et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 1998;105:733-9.
10. Heijl A et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268-79.
11. Kass MA et al. Intraocular pressure and visual field progression in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:490-1.
12. Leske MC et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2144-53.
13. Grodum K et al. A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002;80:627-31.
14. Leske MC. The epidemiology of open-angle glaucoma: a review. Am J Epidemiol 1983;118:166-91.
15. Varma R et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1439-48.
16. Kass MA et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: A randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary openangle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701-13.
17. Miglior S et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology 2005;112:366-75.
18. Vass C et al. Medical interventions for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003167. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003167.pub3.
19. Traverso CE et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:1245-9.
20. Kymes SM et al. Management of Ocular Hypertension: A Cost-effectiveness Approach From the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:997-1008.
21. Gordon MO et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: Baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:714-20.
22. Medeiros FA et al. Validation of a predictive model to estimate the risk of conversion from ocular hypertension to glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:1351-60.
23. Medeiros FA et al. Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:1010-8.
24. Validated Prediction Model for the Development of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma in Individuals with Ocular Hypertension. Ophthalmology 2007;114:10-9.
25. Altman DG et al. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000;19:453-73.
26. Commissioning toolkit for community based eye care services [report on the Internet]. UK Department of Health; 2007 [accessed May 2009]. Available from: URL:http://www.dh.gov. uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_063978.
27. NICE Guideline Group Remit: Glaucoma [document on the Internet]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009 [accessed Jan 2008] Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG85NICEGuideline.
28. Heideleberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) [webpage on the Internet]. Heidelberg Engineering [accessed January 2008]. Available from: URL:http://www.heidelbergengineering.com/.
29. Clinical solutions: GDx [webpage on the Internet]. Carl Zeiss Meditec [accessed January 2008] Available from: URL: http://www.meditec.zeiss.com/gdxvcc.
30. Glasziou PA et al. Evidence-based medical monitoring: from principles to practice. Oxford: Blackwells; 2008.
31. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report No 4. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.
32. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [document on the Internet]. The Cochrane Library; 2006 [accessed Jan 2008]. Available from: URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/handbook.pdf.
33. Kamal D et al. Results of the betaxolol versus placebo treatment trial in ocular hypertension. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003;241:196-203.
34. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1445-55.
35. Reus NJ et al. The prevalence of glaucomatous defects with short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with elevated intraocular pressures. J Glaucoma 2005;14:26-9.
36. Craig JV, Lancaster GA, Williamson PR, Smyth RL. Temperature measured at the axilla compared with rectum in children and young people: systematic review. BMJ 2000 April 29;320(7243):1174-1178.
37. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003 Nov 10;3:25.
38. Burr JM et al. Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optomet Vis Sci 2007;84:797-808.
39. Ryan M et al. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003;3:717-27.
40. Louviere J et al. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
41. Burgess L et al. Optimal designs for 2k choice experiments. Comm Stat Theory Method 2003;32:2185-206.
42. Ryan M et al. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Bodmin: MPG Books; 2006.
43. Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K and Ryan M. Discrete Choice Experiments in a nutshell. In Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. M. Ryan, K. Gerard and M Amaya-Amaya (eds.), Springer, 2008. Page 32.
44. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. June, 2008 Website: www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf Accessed: May 2009.
45. Porteous T et al. Preferences for self-care or professional advice for minor illness: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract 2006;56:911-7.
46. Ryan M et al. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55-64.
47. McCormack K et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: Systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:iii-80.
48. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [document on the Internet]. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. [accessed Jan 2008] Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf
49. Bojke L et al. Defining and characterising structural uncertainty in decision analytic models [document on the Internet]. Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2006 [accessed Jan 2008]. Available from: URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp9.pdf.
50. Briggs A, S et al. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
51. McCormack K et al. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surg 2004;91:495-9.