Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33688000›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of ophthalmology2022

Economic, clinical and social impact of simple limbal epithelial transplantation for limbal stem cell deficiency.

Praveen Thokala, Aastha Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Varsha M Rathi, Sayan Basu, Vivek Singh, Sheila MacNeil, Virender Singh Sangwan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Praveen ThokalaHealth Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, Sheffield, UK.
Aastha SinghCornea and Anterior Segment Services, Dr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Vijay Kumar SinghBrien Holden Eye Research Center, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Varsha M RathiGullapalli Pratibha Rao International Centre for Advancement of Rural Eyecare, The Cornea Institute, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5422-0290
Sayan BasuBrien Holden Eye Research Center, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5030-5003
Vivek SinghBrien Holden Eye Research Center, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India s.macneil@sheffield.ac.uk viveksingh@lvpei.org virender.sangwan@sceh.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3958-5635
Sheila MacNeilDepartment of Materials Science & Engineering, The University of Sheffield Kroto Research Institute, Sheffield, UK s.macneil@sheffield.ac.uk viveksingh@lvpei.org virender.sangwan@sceh.net.
Virender Singh SangwanInnovation Department, Dr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India s.macneil@sheffield.ac.uk viveksingh@lvpei.org virender.sangwan@sceh.net.
L V Prasad Eye Institute · INDr. Shroff’s Charity Eye Hospital · INUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo report the global uptake of simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) and compare the economic, clinical and social outcomes of SLET with those of cultured limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET).

methodsA comprehensive literature review and an online survey of eye surgeons were conducted to understand the efficacy and current uptake of SLET surgery. A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost savings with SLET compared with CLET. Our economic analysis is conducted from an Indian perspective, as this is where the technique originated. A scenario analysis using the UK cost data and a user-friendly Excel model is included to allow users to input the costs from their setting to estimate the cost savings with using SLET compared with using CLET

resultsThe anatomical success with SLET in adults (72.6% (range 62%-80%)) was the same as CLET (70.4% (range 68%-80.9%)). For children, the outcome for SLET (77.8% (range 73%-83%)) was better than with CLET (44.5% (range 43%-45%)). In response to our informal questionnaire, 99 surgeons reported to have performed SLET on 1174 patients in total. They appreciated that SLET negates the requirement for costly tissue engineering facilities. Results of economic analysis suggested that SLET provided an estimated cost-savings of US$6470.88 for adults and US$6673.10 for children. In broad terms, the cost of SLET is approximately 10% of the cost of CLET for adults and 8% for children.

conclusionSLET offers a more accessible and financially attractive alternative to CLET to treat limbal stem cell deficiency.

Indexed as

Corneal DiseasesEpithelium, CornealLimbus CorneaeScleral DiseasesAdultChildHumansSocial ChangeStem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, Autologouscorneastem cellstreatment surgery

Identifiers

PMID33688000
PMCPMC9234414
OpenAlexW3135603682

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.