PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6812521

Cost-effectiveness of thyroid function tests.

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of thyroid function tests (serum thyroxine concentration, triiodothyronine [T3]-resin uptake, free thyroxine index, serum T3, and serum thyrotropin concentration) was assessed in 135 ambulatory patients suspected of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism who did not have a history of thyroid disease requiring medication or thyroid surgery within the preceding two years. Of patients with five or more signs and symptoms compatible with thyroid dysfunction, 50.0% had biochemical abnormalities substantiating hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism, while only 1.5% of patients with fewer than two signs and symptoms had either disease. The cost of thyroid function tests was twice as much per patient evaluated by residents as for those evaluated by faculty physicians. These results suggest that interventions to reduce the number and type of tests in patients without multiple signs and symptoms of thyroid disease could improve the cost-effective use of these tests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J R Drake, D K Miller, R G Evans. 1982. Cost-effectiveness of thyroid function tests.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6812521/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cost-effectiveness of cancer screening in end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests that persons with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) may be at increased risk for malignancy. The appropriateness of screening procedures in this population has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of hypothetical cancer screening programs in the population with ESRD compared with the general population. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis, employing the declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Assumptions were put forth to bias the model in favor of cancer screening. Secondary comparisons were made between cancer screening and other interventions targeted to patients with ESRD. RESULTS: The costs per unit of survival benefit conferred by cancer screening were 1.6 to 19.3 times greater among patients with ESRD than in the general population, depending on age, sex, and race, and assumptions outlined herein. For persons with ESRD, the net gain in life expectancy from a typical cancer screening program was calculated to be 5 days or less. Similar survival gains could be obtained via a reduction of 0.02% or less in the baseline ESRD-related mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that routine cancer screening in the population with ESRD is a relatively inefficient allocation of financial resources. Direction of funds toward improving the quality of dialysis could attain such an objective at substantially lower cost. Furthermore, these findings highlight the importance of competing risks as a consideration in the evaluation of screening strategies and other interventions targeted to patients with ESRD and to other populations with chronic diseases associated with reduced survival.

Cost-Benefit Analysis