Skip to main content

Table 2 Cost (€) per alternative (screening boys and girls combined vs girls only) and incremental cost relative to screening in four non-screening scenarios with a 95% Credibility Interval (CrI)

From: A health economic evaluation of screening and treatment in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  Screening boys and girls Screening girls only
  Cost per child Incremental cost per child Probability incremental cost >0 Cost per child Incremental cost per child Probability incremental cost >0
Screening 57.0 (49 to 66) -   50.6 (44 to 58) -  
Non-screening Norway 57.1 (44 to 73) 0.1 (−14 to 16) 50% 57.1 (44 to 73) 6.5 (6 to 21) 84%
Non-screening 90% treatment rate of Lee et al. 70.3 (59 to 84) 13.3 (1 to 27) 99% 70.3 (59 to 85) 18.4 (8 to 30) >99%
Non-screening 80% treatment rate of Lee et al. 62.5 (52 to 75) 5.5 (−6 to 18) 82% 62.5 (52 to 75) 11.3 (2 to 22) 99%
Non-screening 70% treatment rate of Lee et al. 54.7 (46 to 66) −2.3 (−13 to 9) 33% 54.7 (46 to 66) 4.3 (−4 to 14) 82%
  1. The incremental cost was highest in the 90% treatment rate non-screening scenario with probability of being > 0 close to 100%. Incremental cost in non-screening Norway 2012 is close to the 70% treatment rate scenario. Incremental costs were higher in all non-screening scenarios when comparing screening of girls only than when comparing to screening of both boys and girls. The probabilities of incremental costs being >0 are also higher when comparing non-screening scenarios to screening of girls only than for both boys and girls combined.
\