Literature DB >> 26119214

Reducing an already low dental diagnostic X-ray dose: does it make sense? Comparison of three cost-utility analysis methods used to assess two dental dose-reduction measures.

R C Hoogeveen1, G C H Sanderink1, P F van der Stelt1, W E R Berkhout1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To find a method that is suitable for providing an objective assessment of the cost effectiveness of a dose-reducing measure used for diagnostic dental X-ray exposures.
METHODS: Three cost-utility analysis (CUA) methods were evaluated by comparing their assessments of two dose-reduction measures, a rectangular collimator and the combination of two devices that reduce the radiation dose received during orthodontic lateral cephalography. The following CUA methods were used: (1) the alpha value (AV), a monetary valuation of dose reduction used in the nuclear industry; (2) the value of a statistical life for valuation of the reduction in stochastic adverse effects; and (3) the time-for-time method, based on the postulate that risk reduction is effective when the number of years of life gained is more than the years that an average worker must work to earn the costs of the risk-reducing measure. The CUA methods were used to determine the minimum number of uses that was required for the dose-reducing device to be cost effective. The methods were assessed for coherence (are comparable results achieved for comparable countries?) and adaptability (can the method be adjusted for age and gender of specific patient groups?).
RESULTS: The performance of the time-for-time method was superior to the other methods. Both types of dose-reduction devices tested were assessed as cost effective after a realistic number of uses with all three methods except low AVs.
CONCLUSIONS: CUA for the methods of X-ray dose reduction can be performed to determine if investment in low dose reduction is cost effective. The time-for-time method proved to be a coherent and versatile method for performing CUA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dental radiography; orthodontics; radiation protection; risk management

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26119214      PMCID: PMC5083903          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150158

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  9 in total

1.  The value of reducing risk of death: a policy perspective.

Authors:  Alan Krupnick
Journal:  J Policy Anal Manage       Date:  2002

2.  Are estimates of the value of a statistical life exaggerated?

Authors:  Chris Doucouliagos; T D Stanley; Margaret Giles
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

4.  The value of a statistical life: a meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model.

Authors:  François Bellavance; Georges Dionne; Martin Lebeau
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2008-11-08       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  The relative contributions of different organ sites to the total cancer mortality associated with low-dose radiation exposure.

Authors:  C E Land; W K Sinclair
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  1991

6.  Publication selection and the income elasticity of the value of a statistical life.

Authors:  Hristos Doucouliagos; T D Stanley; W Kip Viscusi
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Dose reduction in orthodontic lateral cephalography: dosimetric evaluation of a novel cephalographic thyroid protector (CTP) and anatomical cranial collimation (ACC).

Authors:  R C Hoogeveen; D Rottke; P F van der Stelt; W E R Berkhout
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.

Authors:  John B Ludlow; Laura E Davies-Ludlow; Stuart C White
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.634

9.  Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures?

Authors:  C J Martin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 3.039

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  The value of thyroid shielding in intraoral radiography.

Authors:  Reinier C Hoogeveen; Bart Hazenoot; Gerard C H Sanderink; W Erwin R Berkhout
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 2.419

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.