Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31111447›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2020

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights.

Jose Bartelt-Hofer, Lilia Ben-Debba, Steffen Flessa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Jose Bartelt-HoferErnst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. jose.bartelthofer@stud.uni-greifswald.de.
Lilia Ben-DebbaDauphine University, Paris, France.
Steffen FlessaErnst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur objective was to review, compare and gain insight into economic evaluations in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) with a focus on existing decision analytic models.

methodsA literature review was performed using clinical and specialized databases following best practices. Relevant inclusion criteria included the development of a decision analytic model, the assessment of POAG interventions, and a full economic evaluation in terms of costs and health-related outcomes. Model inputs and settings were extracted, compared and analyzed. Main study incremental outcomes were also reported.

resultsThe literature review identified 22 full articles in alignment with the eligibility criteria for a total of 15 countries and a wide range of years from 1983 to 2018. Interventions included as competing alternatives in the eligible studies were topical medications (33%), screening or diagnosis (33%), surgical interventions (10%), laser trabeculoplasty (10%) and minimally invasive surgeries (3%). Markov models using transition states were the most common type of modeling approach. Cost-utility models using a mid- to long-term time horizon with a national payer perspective were the most frequent type of economic evaluation identified. Model states commonly included disease severity levels, as defined by glaucoma staging systems, and other relevant events such as blindness and death. Authors did not sufficiently justify key modeling assumptions, inputs or the robustness of their findings.

conclusionsDecision analytic models in POAG can reasonably guide future modeling research by revealing common practices, inputs and assumptions. Furthermore, this review revealed evidence gaps in terms of unexplored interventions and treatment sequences.

Identifiers

PMID31111447
PMCPMC7018915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.