FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 306:1392-1398 June 10, 1982 Number 23 Next

	Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Abstract

Lead-screening programs may reduce childhood disabilities, but at what cost? Through a review of the literature, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis in which the costs, savings, and health benefits of two lead-screening strategies--employing either a free erythrocyte protoporphyrin assay or blood lead measurement--were compared with each other and with a strategy of no screening in a population of three-year-old children. When the prevalence of lead poisoning among the children screened is 7 per cent or more, we estimate that free erythrocyte protoporphyrin screening averts morbidity and results in net savings: It is both better and cheaper than no screening. At prevalences below 7 per cent, the net positive costs from screening and early treatment must be weighed against the noneconomic benefits of improved quality of life and considered in relation to other investments that could be made to benefit society. At all prevalence rates, free erythrocyte protoporphyrin screening is more cost effective than blood lead screening.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Kemper, A. R., Bordley, W. C., Downs, S. M. (1998). Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Lead Poisoning Screening Strategies Following the 1997 Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152: 1202-1208 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Silverstein, M. D. (1983). A Clinical Decision Analysis Program for the Apple Computer. Med Decis Making 3: 29-37 [Abstract]