Comparison of screening strategies for prevalent vertebral fractures in South Korea: vertebral fracture assessment vs. spine radiography

Table 3 Results of the base case analysis and multivariate sensitivity analysis for the diagnostic strategies during a 10-year period

Category	Diagnostic strategies	Effectiveness (%)	ΔE^a (%)	Costs (€)	ΔC^b (€)	ΔRE^c (μSv)
Women
Base case	No screening	54.6		60
	Do screening^e	23.3	−31.3	1027	967	1427
	X-ray following VFA	25.2	−29.4	881	821	747
	VFA	25.2	−29.4	1202	1142	141
	X-ray	19.6	−35.0	998	938	3394
Multivariate sensitivity (Cl = 1 year)	No screening	54.6		60
	Do screening^e	23.2	−31.4	1102	1042	2455
	X-ray following VFA	24.8	−29.7	862	802	996
	VFA	24.8	−29.7	1418	1358	254
	X-ray	19.9	−34.7	1025	966	6115
Men
Base case	No screening	22.5		27
	Do screening^e	8.4	−14.2	658	630	1416
	X-ray following VFA	10.1	−12.5	504	477	556
	VFA	10.1	−12.5	927	899	147
	X-ray	5.0	−17.5	542	515	3545
Multivariate sensitivity (Cl = 1 year)	No screening	54.6		60
	Do screening^e	8.3	−14.2	734	707	2526
	X-ray following VFA	10.1	−12.4	498	471	828
	VFA	10.1	−12.4	1143	1116	267
	X-ray	4.8	−17.7	560	533	6483
Total^d	Do screening^e	16.4	−23.3	854	810	1422

VFA vertebral fracture assessment, Cl Cycle length
^aΔE (Incremental effectiveness, %) = Effect_{index test}–Effect_{no screening} in new VFs incident
^bΔC (Incremental Costs, €) = Costs_{index test}–Costs_{no screening} in the costs of test and VFs treatment
^cΔRE (Incremental radiation exposure, μSv) = Radiation doses_{index test}–Radiation doses_{no screening}; Radiation doses_{no screening} was assumed to be ‘0 μSv’
^dIn the base case, the weighted average by the registration population by gender (female = 8,649,974 people; male = 7,590,057 people) based on Statistics
^eDo screening presents the average expected values of X-ray following VFA, VFA only, and X-ray only

ISSN: 1471-2474