Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21695383›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2011

Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in Japan.

Eye Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Team (ECCERT)

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Eye Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Team (ECCERT)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery through measurement of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in Japan.

methodsA total of 549 patients scheduled for cataract surgery at 12 clinical sites from November 2008 through February 2010 were included in the study. Prospective assessment of patient preference-based quality of life (utility) was performed before and after the surgery using the time tradeoff method, EuroQol, and Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the correlation between utility and visual acuity. The QALYs gained through cataract surgery were estimated, and cost-utility analysis was performed.

resultsThe utilities significantly correlated with the visual acuity in the better seeing eye. In all the subgroups (first eye surgery, second eye surgery, and bilateral surgery), mean utility improvement was statistically significant. Average QALYs for unilateral cataract surgery and bilateral cataract surgery were 2.40 and 3.40, respectively. The cost per QALY gained from surgery was estimated at ¥122,472 (US $1,307) for unilateral surgery and ¥145,562 (US $1,553) for bilateral surgery.

conclusionsRoutine cataract surgery in Japan is highly cost-effective. Factors that contribute to this are the high clinical effectiveness of the surgery, the substantial improvement in patient-perceived quality of life, and the reasonable cost of the surgery.

Indexed as

Quality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overCataractCataract ExtractionCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSickness Impact Profile

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.