Skip to main content

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

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

Category Diagnostic strategies Effectiveness (%) ΔEa (%) Costs (€) ΔCb (€) ΔREc (μSv)
Women
 Base case No screening 54.6   60   
Do screeninge 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 screeninge 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 screeninge 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 screeninge 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
Totald Do screeninge 16.4 −23.3 854 810 1422
  1. VFA vertebral fracture assessment, Cl Cycle length
  2. aΔE (Incremental effectiveness, %) = Effectindex test–Effectno screening in new VFs incident
  3. bΔC (Incremental Costs, €) = Costsindex test–Costsno screening in the costs of test and VFs treatment
  4. cΔRE (Incremental radiation exposure, μSv) = Radiation dosesindex test–Radiation dosesno screening; Radiation dosesno screening was assumed to be ‘0 μSv’
  5. 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
  6. eDo screening presents the average expected values of X-ray following VFA, VFA only, and X-ray only