Literature DB >> 10201748

Cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic evaluation of vertigo.

M G Stewart1, A Y Chen, J R Wyatt, S Favrot, S Beinart, N J Coker, H A Jenkins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of several diagnostic tests used in the evaluation of vertigo. STUDY
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from retrospective case review.
METHODS: Charts and test results were reviewed from 192 outpatients seen in an academic tertiary referral center for evaluation of vertigo. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision analysis software, data from office and hospital charges, and expert-based estimations of the utility of different test outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed using standard algorithms and wide variable ranges.
RESULTS: We found that audiologic testing, posturography, and electronystagmography were the most cost-effective tests, and that magnetic resonance imaging and blood tests had the lowest cost-effectiveness. The analysis was sensitive to the effects of financial costs of tests but, with a few exceptions, was typically not sensitive to the utility of test outcomes or the distribution of test results.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimation of utility of test outcomes, and techniques of sensitivity analysis should help guide the clinician's decision making on appropriate testing for patients with vertigo.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10201748     DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199904000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  13 in total

1.  Modeling postural instability with Galvanic vestibular stimulation.

Authors:  Hamish G MacDougall; Steven T Moore; Ian S Curthoys; F Owen Black
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The importance of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of vertigo and imbalance.

Authors:  S J Marzo; J P Leonetti
Journal:  Skull Base Surg       Date:  2000

3.  Clinical efficacy of the Romberg test using a foam pad to identify balance problems: a comparative study with the sensory organization test.

Authors:  Sung Kwang Hong; Joo Hyun Park; Sae Young Kwon; Ji-Soo Kim; Ja-Won Koo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Practice variation in neuroimaging to evaluate dizziness in the ED.

Authors:  Anthony S Kim; Stephen Sidney; Jeffrey G Klingman; S Claiborne Johnston
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 2.469

5.  A prospective pilot study of predictors of acute stroke in emergency department patients with dizziness.

Authors:  Maureen Chase; Joshua N Goldstein; Magdy H Selim; Daniel J Pallin; Marc A Camacho; Jennifer L O'Connor; Long Ngo; Jonathan A Edlow
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Yield of CT angiography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with dizziness.

Authors:  S Fakhran; L Alhilali; B F Branstetter
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Symptoms of vertigo in general practice: a prospective study of diagnosis.

Authors:  K Hanley; T O' Dowd
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Postural control deficits in people with fibromyalgia: a pilot study.

Authors:  Kim D Jones; Laurie A King; Scott D Mist; Robert M Bennett; Fay B Horak
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 5.156

9.  The Neural Correlates of Chronic Symptoms of Vertigo Proneness in Humans.

Authors:  Ola Alsalman; Jan Ost; Robby Vanspauwen; Catherine Blaivie; Dirk De Ridder; Sven Vanneste
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Nasal mucosal melanoma presenting as central type vertigo: a case report.

Authors:  Konstantinos Nellas; Iordanis Konstantinidis; Alexandros Zevgaridis; Athanasia Printza; Ioannis Efstratiou
Journal:  Cases J       Date:  2009-05-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.