Cargando…

Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts. METHODS: Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ginel, José, Burguera, Noemi, Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos, Piñero, David, Sáez-Martín, Alejandro, Fernández, Joaquín
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10011294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36809595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0
_version_ 1784906359025696768
author Ginel, José
Burguera, Noemi
Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos
Piñero, David
Sáez-Martín, Alejandro
Fernández, Joaquín
author_facet Ginel, José
Burguera, Noemi
Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos
Piñero, David
Sáez-Martín, Alejandro
Fernández, Joaquín
author_sort Ginel, José
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts. METHODS: Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups. RESULTS: Among 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10011294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100112942023-03-15 Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review Ginel, José Burguera, Noemi Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos Piñero, David Sáez-Martín, Alejandro Fernández, Joaquín Ophthalmol Ther Review INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts. METHODS: Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups. RESULTS: Among 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0. Springer Healthcare 2023-02-21 2023-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10011294/ /pubmed/36809595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Ginel, José
Burguera, Noemi
Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos
Piñero, David
Sáez-Martín, Alejandro
Fernández, Joaquín
Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title_full Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title_fullStr Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title_full_unstemmed Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title_short Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review
title_sort economic evaluation of cataract: a systematic mapping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10011294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36809595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0
work_keys_str_mv AT gineljose economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview
AT burgueranoemi economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview
AT rochadelossadacarlos economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview
AT pinerodavid economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview
AT saezmartinalejandro economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview
AT fernandezjoaquin economicevaluationofcataractasystematicmappingreview