Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29673317›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018

Budget impact model of Mydrane®, a new intracameral injectable used for intra-operative mydriasis, from a UK hospital perspective.

Keith Davey, Bernard Chang, Christine Purslow, Emilie Clay, Anne-Lise Vataire

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmacologic interventions for mydriasis in cataract surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Keith DaveyCalderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Huddersfield, UK. keithgdavey@gmail.com.
Bernard ChangLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Christine PurslowThea Pharmaceuticals, Keele, UK.
Emilie ClayCreativ-Ceutical, Paris, France.
Anne-Lise VataireCreativ-Ceutical, Paris, France.
Creativ-Ceutical (France) · FRCalderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring cataract surgery, maintaining an adequate degree of mydriasis throughout the entire operation is critical to allow for visualisation of the capsulorhexis and the crystalline lens. Good anaesthesia is also essential for safe intraocular surgery. Mydrane® is a new injectable intracameral solution containing two mydriatics (tropicamide 0.02% and phenylephrine 0.31%) and one anaesthetic (lidocaine 1%) that was developed as an alternative to the conventional topical pre-operative mydriatics used in cataract surgery. This study aimed to estimate the budget impact across a one year time frame using Mydrane® instead of topical dilating eye drops, for a UK hospital performing 3,000 cataract operations a year.

methodsA budget impact model (BIM) was developed to compare the economic outcomes associated with the use of Mydrane® versus topical drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%) in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a UK hospital. The outcomes of interest included costs and resource use (e.g. clinician time, mydriasis failures, operating room time, number of patients per vial of therapy etc.) associated with management of mydriasis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. All model inputs considered the UK hospital perspective without social or geographical variables. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the model uncertainty.

resultsIntroduction of Mydrane® is associated with a cost saving of £6,251 over 3,000 cataract surgeries in one year. The acquisition costs of the Mydrane® (£18,000 by year vs. £3,330 for eye drops) were balanced by substantial reductions in mainly nurses' costs and time, plus a smaller contribution from savings in surgeons' costs (£20,511) and lower costs associated with auxiliary dilation (£410 due to avoidance of additional dilation methods). Results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model to the variation of inputs. Except for the duration of one session of eye drop instillation and the cost of Mydrane®, Mydrane® achieved an incremental cost gain compared to tropicamide/phenylephrine eye drops.

conclusionsDespite a higher acquisition cost of Mydrane®, the budget impact of Mydrane® on hospital budgets is neutral. Mydrane® offers a promising alternative to traditional regimes using eye drops, allowing for a better patient flow and optimisation of the surgery schedule with neutral budget impact.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAnesthetics, LocalBudgetsDrug CostsHospital CostsHumansLidocaineModels, EconomicMydriasisMydriaticsPhacoemulsificationPhenylephrineProspective StudiesTropicamideUnited KingdomAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineMydriaticsPhenylephrineTropicamideAnaesthesiaBudget impact modelCataract surgeryMydriasisMydriatics

Identifiers

PMID29673317
PMCPMC5907706
OpenAlexW2805189266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.