title: Cost-effectiveness of quantitative ultrasound as a technique for screening of osteoporotic fracture risk: report on a health technology assessment conducted in 2001.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  On behalf of the German Agency for Health Technology Assessment (DAHTA@DIMDI) a rapid economic HTA was conducted. Aim of the HTA was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) for screening of osteoporotic fracture risk. Study population was formed by postmenopausal women. QUS was compared to the dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the most frequently used method of measurement.
  
  
  METHODS
  According to the recommendations for rapid economic HTA a comprehensive literature search was conducted. Data of identified and relevant publications have been extracted in form of a qualitative and quantitative information synthesis. The authors calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different screening procedures: (1) one-step proceeding comparing QUS with DXA, (2) two-step proceeding starting with QUS followed by DXA in pathologic cases.
  
  
  RESULTS
  An additional case diagnosed by DXA in a one-step proceeding rises additional costs of about 1,000 EURO. A two-step proceeding with QUS is cost-effective as long as the costs of one QUS examination are lower than 31%-51% of the costs of one DXA examination.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All considered studies showed methodological limitations. None of them included long term effects like avoided bone fractures. Considering long-term effects probably would change the results. Due to the weakness of data no concluding judgement about the cost-effectiveness of QUS can be given.
authors.affiliation: Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation, Institute for Medical Management, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. p.aidelsburger@t-online.de
authors.forename: Pamela
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Aidelsburger
authors.forename: Franz
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Hessel
authors.forename: Jürgen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wasem
references.citation: Lancet. 1996 Aug 24;348(9026):511-4
references.pmid: 8757153
references.citation: Med Clin (Barc). 2000;114 Suppl 2:63-7
references.pmid: 10916809
references.citation: Maturitas. 2004 Feb 20;47(2):139-49
references.pmid: 14757273
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(5):305-14
references.pmid: 12627984
references.citation: J Clin Densitom. 2003 Fall;6(3):237-45
references.pmid: 14514993
references.citation: J Intern Med Suppl. 1997;739:1-60
references.pmid: 9104441
references.citation: Technol Health Care. 1997 Jul;5(3):235-41
references.pmid: 9263372
references.citation: World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1994;843:1-129
references.pmid: 7941614
references.citation: Technol Health Care. 1999;7(5):319-30
references.pmid: 10543417
references.citation: Soz Praventivmed. 1994;39(5):287-92
references.pmid: 7871899
references.citation: J Clin Densitom. 2000 Fall;3(3):241-9
references.pmid: 11090231
references.citation: Z Gastroenterol. 2002 Apr;40 Suppl 1:S57-S61
references.pmid: 11930292
references.citation: Technol Health Care. 2000;8(5):277-84
references.pmid: 11204173