This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

James R. Campbell, MD, MPH; Mary Paris, MPH; Stanley J. Schaffer, MD, MS

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(11):1205-1208.

Abstract
Objective
To calculate and compare the average expected cost per child screened (hereafter referred to as COST) among various screening strategies.

Design
A decision analysis of 5 strategies: (1) conduct risk assessment and screen high-risk children by venipuncture, low-risk children by fingerstick; (2) screen all children by fingerstick; (3) screen all children by venipuncture; (4) conduct risk assessment, screen high-risk children by fingerstick; and (5) conduct risk assessment, screen high-risk children by venipuncture. We assumed all fingerstick blood lead levels of 0.72 µmol/L or higher (15 µg/dL) would be confirmed by venipuncture. Baseline variables taken from the literature included prevalence of elevated blood lead levels in the pediatric population (2%), sensitivity and specificity of fingerstick blood lead assay (90% each), specificity of risk assessment (50%), sensitivity of risk assessment at blood lead levels of 0.48 to 0.68 µmol/L (10-14 µg/dL and 0.72 µmol/L or higher (15 µg/dL) (65% and 85%, respectively), cost of blood lead assay ($6), cost to obtain blood by venipuncture ($4) and fingerstick ($2), and cost to get a child who has a fingerstick blood lead level of 0.72 µmol/L or higher (15 µg/dL) to return ($0.18). Sensitivity analysis determined whether selected variables affected the COST.

Results
The COSTs for strategies 1 through 5 were $9.07, $8.16, $10, $4.13, and $5.04, respectively. Among the universal strategies, screening children by fingerstick had the lowest COST at a prevalence of less than 38% and fingerstick blood lead assay a specificity of greater than 62%. Among the selective strategies, screening high-risk children by fingerstick had the lowest COST at a prevalence of less than 38% and fingerstick blood lead an assay specificity of greater than 63%.

Conclusion
At a readily attainable specificity of the fingerstick blood lead assay, practices serving a patient population with a prevalence of elevated blood lead levels of less than 38% will have the lowest COST when a fingerstick screening strategy is used.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:1205-1208

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Pediatrics (Drs Campbell and Schaffer) and Community and Preventive Medicine (Ms Paris), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Identifying and managing adverse environmental health effects: 3. Lead exposure
Sanborn et al.
CMAJ 2002;166:1287-1292.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Lead Poisoning Screening Strategies Following the 1997 Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Kemper et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:1202-1208.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening Strategies for Elevated Blood Lead Levels
Andrews
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;151:636-636.
ABSTRACT  

Screening Strategies for Elevated Blood Lead Levels-Reply
Campbell et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;151:636-636.
ABSTRACT