ADC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

The most recent version of this article was published on 1 April 2008

Arch Dis Child. Published Online First: 2 May 2007. doi:10.1136/adc.2006.109843
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
adc.2006.109843v1
93/4/278    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Read responses to this article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in ADC Online
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Debra A Fayter
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fayter, D. A
Right arrow Articles by Westwood, M. E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fayter, D. A
Right arrow Articles by Westwood, M. E
Topic Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Original articles

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of height screening programmes during the primary school years: a systematic review

Debra A Fayter 1, John Nixon 1, Suzanne Hartley 2, Amber Rithalia 1, Gary E Butler 3, Mary Rudolf 2, Paul Glasziou 4, Martin Bland 1, Lisa Stirk 1 and Marie E Westwood 1*

1 University of York, United Kingdom
2 University of Leeds, United Kingdom
3 University of Reading, United Kingdom
4 University of Oxford, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mew3{at}york.ac.uk.

Accepted 25 April 2007


*   Abstract

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of height screening (aged four to 11) to identify height-related conditions.

Design: Systematic review and economic modelling.

Setting and intervention: We included published and un-published studies of any design except case reports, conducted in any setting that measured children’s height as part of a population-level assessment. Studies were identified by electronic database searches, contact with experts and from bibliographies of retrieved studies.

Participants: Children aged between four and 11 years

Outcome measures: Diagnostic yield of height-related conditions and change in quality of life, as measured by Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs), for early versus late treatment of underlying conditions.

Results: Twelve studies described a height screening programme and provided data on the diagnostic yield of newly diagnosed height-related conditions. Where reported, yield for Growth Hormone Deficiency (per 1000 children screened) ranged from 0.05 (1/20,000) to 0.62 (approximately 1/1500) and for Turner syndrome (per 1000 children screened) was between 0.02 (1/50,000) and 0.07 (approximately 1/14,000). As a secondary gain, children with other potentially treatable conditions were identified; diagnostic yields ranged from 0.22 to 1.84 per 1000 children screened. Three studies did not detect any new cases, but all of these studies had methodological limitations. Economic modelling suggested that height screening is associated with health improvements and is cost effective for a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Conclusions: This review indicates the utility and acceptable cost-effectiveness of height screening arising from increased detection of height-related disorders and secondary pick-up of other undiagnosed conditions. However, further research is needed to obtain more reliable data on quality of life gains and costs associated with early interventions for height-related conditions. The exact role of height screening programmes in improving child health remains to be determined.


Keywords: child development, growth, mass screening, systematic review


Related Article

Atoms
Howard Bauchner
Arch. Dis. Child. 2008 93: 1. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
D Hall, T Cole, D Elliman, P Gibson, S Logan, and J Wales
Growth monitoring
Arch. Dis. Child., August 1, 2008; 93(8): 717 - 718.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
T. Fry
If it's worth doing, let's do it!
Arch. Dis. Child., April 1, 2008; 93(4): 267 - 268.
[Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Response to Fayter et al
Graham V Vimpani, et al.
ADC Online, 25 Mar 2008 [Full text]
Growth monitoring
David M hall, et al.
ADC Online, 12 May 2008 [Full text]



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
ARCH DIS CHILD FETAL NEONATAL ED ED PRACTICE
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health