KK Lim
@limkk.bsky.social
A curious health economist | 💭🔎🖊 #HealthServices #HealthPolicy #PopulationHealth #SystemThinking #rstats #screening| MPharm,MSc,PhD | Own views | Follow / Repost / Like ≠ endorse
📍 🇲🇾 🇸🇬 🇬🇧 https://linktr.ee/kklim_healtheconomics
📍 🇲🇾 🇸🇬 🇬🇧 https://linktr.ee/kklim_healtheconomics
<50% EEs reported intervals,diagnostic method, treatment & screening locations. None reported all aspects of screening designs.
We recommend future EEs of T2DM screening to report all aspects of screening designs, to allow synthesis and assessment of findings transferability.
We recommend future EEs of T2DM screening to report all aspects of screening designs, to allow synthesis and assessment of findings transferability.
February 27, 2025 at 9:52 PM
<50% EEs reported intervals,diagnostic method, treatment & screening locations. None reported all aspects of screening designs.
We recommend future EEs of T2DM screening to report all aspects of screening designs, to allow synthesis and assessment of findings transferability.
We recommend future EEs of T2DM screening to report all aspects of screening designs, to allow synthesis and assessment of findings transferability.
Compared to universal screening, targeted screening (e.g., among obese) may be cost-effectv or dominant.
Similarly for expanding screening locations, or ⬇️FPG / HbA1c thresholds (but not too ⬇️) for diagnosis.
Similarly for expanding screening locations, or ⬇️FPG / HbA1c thresholds (but not too ⬇️) for diagnosis.
February 27, 2025 at 9:52 PM
Compared to universal screening, targeted screening (e.g., among obese) may be cost-effectv or dominant.
Similarly for expanding screening locations, or ⬇️FPG / HbA1c thresholds (but not too ⬇️) for diagnosis.
Similarly for expanding screening locations, or ⬇️FPG / HbA1c thresholds (but not too ⬇️) for diagnosis.
Compared to no screening,
(a) screening with biomarkers not cost-effective in ~half EEs (23/54 comparisons),
(b) screening with risk score alone mostly dominant (6/10),
(c) screening with combinations of risk score and biomarkers cost-effectv (21/40) or dominant (19/40).
(a) screening with biomarkers not cost-effective in ~half EEs (23/54 comparisons),
(b) screening with risk score alone mostly dominant (6/10),
(c) screening with combinations of risk score and biomarkers cost-effectv (21/40) or dominant (19/40).
February 27, 2025 at 9:52 PM
Compared to no screening,
(a) screening with biomarkers not cost-effective in ~half EEs (23/54 comparisons),
(b) screening with risk score alone mostly dominant (6/10),
(c) screening with combinations of risk score and biomarkers cost-effectv (21/40) or dominant (19/40).
(a) screening with biomarkers not cost-effective in ~half EEs (23/54 comparisons),
(b) screening with risk score alone mostly dominant (6/10),
(c) screening with combinations of risk score and biomarkers cost-effectv (21/40) or dominant (19/40).