This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • 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
Department of Pediatrics Rochester General Hospital 1425 Portland Ave Rochester, NY 14621

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(6):636.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Dr Andrews' central critique is that our study¹ is not a cost-benefit analysis. However, that was not our objective. Rather, we conducted a cost analysis, ie, we determined which screening strategy had the lowest cost per child screened, not whether the cost of universal screening outweighed the benefits of secondary prevention (ie, averted learning disability or school failure). We acknowledged this limitation in the next to the last paragraph of the "Comment" section, in which we cautioned against comparing the cost of selective strategies with that of universal strategies. Although the former are less expensive, elevated blood lead levels are detected in fewer children. "The question of whether the cost of missed diagnoses resulting from selective screening would be offset by the lower cost of such strategies is unresolved and would require a cost-benefit analysis."¹

Nevertheless, Dr Andrews raises a cogent point: Is universal screening for elevated blood . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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