BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of clinical versus radiographic screening for an orbital foreign body before MR imaging. METHODS: Costs of screening were determined on the basis of published reports, disability rating guides, and a practice survey. Base case estimates were derived from published guidelines. A single-state change model was constructed using social cost as the unit of analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed for each variable. The benefit of screening was avoidance of immediate, permanent, nonameliorable, unilateral blindness. RESULTS: Using base case estimates and a discount rate of zero, we calculated the cost of the current guideline as $328,580 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Sensitivity analysis identified screening cost as a critical variable. Discount rates and effectiveness of foreign body removal also were found to be important factors. Probability of injury and prevalence of foreign body may impact the analysis. CONCLUSION: Clinical screening before radiography increases the cost-effectiveness of foreign body screening by an order of magnitude, assuming base case ocular foreign body removal rates. Asking the patient "Did a doctor get it all out?" serves this purpose. Occupational history by itself is not sufficient to mandate radiographic orbital screening. Current practice guidelines for foreign body screening should be altered.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of clinical versus radiographic screening for an orbital foreign body before MR imaging. METHODS: Costs of screening were determined on the basis of published reports, disability rating guides, and a practice survey. Base case estimates were derived from published guidelines. A single-state change model was constructed using social cost as the unit of analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed for each variable. The benefit of screening was avoidance of immediate, permanent, nonameliorable, unilateral blindness. RESULTS: Using base case estimates and a discount rate of zero, we calculated the cost of the current guideline as $328,580 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Sensitivity analysis identified screening cost as a critical variable. Discount rates and effectiveness of foreign body removal also were found to be important factors. Probability of injury and prevalence of foreign body may impact the analysis. CONCLUSION: Clinical screening before radiography increases the cost-effectiveness of foreign body screening by an order of magnitude, assuming base case ocular foreign body removal rates. Asking the patient "Did a doctor get it all out?" serves this purpose. Occupational history by itself is not sufficient to mandate radiographic orbital screening. Current practice guidelines for foreign body screening should be altered.
Authors: P M Otto; R A Otto; C Virapongse; S M Friedman; S Emerson; K C Li; R Malot; J V Kaude; E V Staab Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 6.016