Table 6: Results of one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis.
| Variable | Base-case value (range) | ICER, $/case detected per year |
|---|---|---|
| Prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy | 0.225 (0.169-0.281) | 394.40-265.89 |
| Proportion of patients who prefer pharmacy-based TO for screening | 0.40 (0.40-0.70) | 314.15-236.56 |
| Diagnostic accuracy of in-person examination | ||
| Sensitivity | 0.75 (0.67-0.83) | 282.00-361.20 |
| Specificity | 0.82 (0.79-0.86) | 287.00-350.20 |
| Diagnostic accuracy of pharmacy-based TO | ||
| Sensitivity | 0.84 (0.76-0.91) | 405.90-304.90 |
| Specificity | 0.94 (0.90-0.97) | 350.90-286.60 |
| Proportion of examinations with pupil dilation with TO | 0.337 (0.25-0.47) | 333.90-321.50 |
| Rate of unreadable images with TO | ||
| With pupil dilation | 0.054 (0.033-0.076) | 306.60-321.50 |
| Without pupil dilation | 0.287 (0.139-0.435) | 209.90-411.20 |
| Grader fee per patient with TO, $ | 31.66 (23.75-55.41) | 207.60-633.90 |
| TO coordinator fee per patient, $ | 4.03 (3.02-5.04) | 300.00-327.80 |
| Ophthalmic photographer, $ | 6.05 (4.54-7.56) | 300.05-327.80 |
| In-person consultation, $ | 51.10 (38.33-89.43) | (TO dominates at 77) |
| Referral to retina specialist, $ | 111.31 (83.48-139.14) | 252.50-375.80 |
Note: ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, TO = teleophthalmology.