Article

Growth monitoring for short stature: update of a systematic review and economic model.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 02/2011; 15(11):iii-iv, 1-64. DOI: 10.3310/hta15110
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the project was to compare different screening rules and/or referral cut-offs for the identification of children with disorders of short stature. We undertook an update of a previous systematic review and economic model that addressed the same question.
Sources searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science/Social Science & Humanities, Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 4, Office of Health Economics Health Economic Evaluations Database, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database.
The review was conducted as an update to our previous assessment in 2007. Searching covered January 2005 to November 2009 with no language or publication restrictions. Two reviewers examined full papers for relevance. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second. In addition, searches were conducted to identify quality of life or utility papers to inform the economic evaluation. We developed a probabilistic decision analytic model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains from the perspective of the UK NHS and personal social services. The model was a cohort model, assuming a homogeneous population of 5-year-olds at baseline.
One study was included in the systematic review. The study was not UK based, but had been identified in the brief as relevant to the UK setting. The study's authors examined the performance of a number of rules to determine sensitivity and specificity of referral for short stature in four patient groups and three reference groups in the Netherlands. They derived an algorithm for referral based on the optimal rules. No new studies were located that provided appropriate quality of life or utilities data for the economic model. The model was based on the previous assessment which was updated to better reflect current UK clinical practice. We compared two alternative monitoring strategies, one of which was based on the study identified in our systematic review (Grote strategy); the other was based on UK consensus (UK strategy). We identified that the UK strategy was the least effective and least costly, with a mean gain of 0.001 QALYs at a mean cost of £21. The Grote strategy was both more expensive and more effective, with a mean cost of £68 and a mean QALY gain of 0.042. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £1144 per QALY gained.
This assessment contributes further knowledge, but does not provide definitive answers on how to deliver growth monitoring. In particular, we were unable to ascertain current practice in the UK for growth screening. Further, we were unable to evaluate through the use of identified studies and modelling an optimal referral cut-off and age at which to screen. We identified a number of research questions that would further inform referral strategies, which in summary would involve further primary and secondary data collection.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

0 Followers
 · 
94 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Height is a physical trait on a continuum. The threshold between normal and abnormal is arbitrarily set, potentially influencing medical decision-making. We sought to examine parents' perceptions of adult heights and associated demographic factors.Methods: Parents of pediatric primary care patients of various heights completed a one-time survey. Parents answered, "How short is too short?" for adult males and females. Results were summarized as median [interquartile range]. Factors significantly associated with height threshold by simple linear regression were included in a multivariable mixed effects analysis of covariance model.Results: 1820 surveys were completed (83% response rate; 1587 female, 231 male). Median threshold height deemed too short for adult females was 56 inches [48, 59] among male respondents and 57 inches [50, 60] among female (p<.05). Median threshold height for adult males was 61 inches among males [60, 64] and females [59, 66] (p<.05). The median of male minus female heights per respondent (delta heights) was 5 [2, 7] inches. Factors found to be significant main effects in a parsimonious model were sex of adult considered, height of respondent, sex of respondent, respondent race, primary care practice, income and having concerns about their child's height.Conclusion: Taller acceptable height thresholds were perceived by respondents who were taller, wealthier, white, female, from non-urban practices or who had a personal concern about their child's height. Male heights were expected to be taller than female. Such traits may influence who is concerned and more likely to seek medical treatment for their children.
    Endocrine Practice 06/2014; 1(-1):1-23. DOI:10.4158/EP14052.OR · 2.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A child's pattern of linear growth is one of the most sensitive indicators of health and well-being. However, many health care personnel use casual techniques and faulty instruments to measure children's growth and keep imprecise growth charts, making interpretation of growth patterns problematic. This situation can delay diagnosis and treatment of children with growth disorders and other conditions that affect growth. It can also lead to undue anxiety and unnecessary evaluation of children who are actually growing well. A clinical practice guideline was developed to optimize the accuracy and reliability of linear growth measurement. This article presents strategies to implement the guideline and thereby increase awareness of the importance of standardized growth measurement techniques and instruments, facilitate staff training and competency, and encourage standardized record keeping. These strategies will give providers more confidence in their interpretation of children's growth patterns and allow them to recognize potential problems, possibly before other symptoms appear.
    Journal of Pediatric Health Care 09/2014; 28(5). DOI:10.1016/j.pedhc.2014.01.001 · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To report findings from a systematic review, this article sought to address two related questions. First, how has the practice of UK pediatric cost-utility analyses evolved over time, in particular how are health-related outcomes assessed and valued? Second, how do the methods compare to the limited guidance available, in particular, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case(s)? Methods Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were conducted for the period May 2004 to April 2012 and the Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation database for the period May 2004 to December 2010. Identified studies were screened by three independent reviewers. Results Forty-three studies were identified, 11 of which elicit utility values through primary research. A discrepancy was identified between the methods used for outcome measurement and valuation and the methods advocated within the NICE reference case. Despite NICE recommending the use of preference-based instruments designed specifically for children, most studies that were identified had used adult measures. In fact, the measurement of quality-adjusted life-years is the aspect of economic evaluation with the greatest amount of variability and the area that most digressed from the NICE reference case. Conclusions Recommendations stemming from the review are that all studies should specify the age range of childhood and include separate statements of perspective for costs and effects as well as the reallocation of research funding away from systematic review studies toward good quality primary research measuring utilities in children.
    Value in Health 06/2014; 17(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.02.007 · 2.89 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
91 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014