Table 3. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis for different screening programs for diabetic retinopathy during the 10-year follow-up.
| Screening strategy | Cost (NT$)* |
Effectiveness (sight years gained) |
Cost/ Effectiveness (NT$) |
Incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (Compared to control group) |
Utility (QALY)‡ |
Cost/Utility (NT$) |
Incremental cost-utility ratio (Compared to control group) |
| Annual screening | 172007 | 8.2055 | 20962 | Dominate† | 7.8458 | 21924 | Dominate† |
| Biennial screening | 197601 | 7.9071 | 24990 | Dominate† | 7.8046 | 25319 | Dominate† |
| 3-year screening | 233761 | 7.5781 | 30847 | Dominate† | 7.7667 | 30098 | Dominate† |
| 4-year screening | 271403 | 7.2499 | 37435 | Dominate† | 7.731 | 35106 | Dominate† |
| 5-year screening | 308189 | 6.9336 | 44449 | Dominate† | 7.6976 | 40037 | Dominate† |
| Control group | 465130 | 5.5763 | 83411 | - | 7.558 | 61542 | - |
*: New Taiwan dollar
†: Any screening program was more cost-effective than no program.
‡: quality-adjusted life-year