ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Cost comparison between botulinum neurotoxin and surgery in the treatment of infantile esotropia in a tertiary public hospital.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost implications of botulinum neurotoxin (BNT) injection to surgery in infantile esotropia (IE) in a public/government funded hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A simple costing comparison was undertaken for a randomised clinical trial in IE. Patients were randomised to receive either BNT or standard surgery. The participants in the BNT arm were further subdivided into subgroups based on their age in months and degree of esotropia in prism dioptres (PD) at presentation: G1 ≤60 PD/24 months, G2 ≤24 months/>60 PD, G3 >24 months/≤60 PD, G4 >24 months/>60 PD. The costs were calculated for each arm from primary treatment to eventual satisfactory outcome defined as orthophoria or microtropia (≤10 PD). A bottom-up costing analysis was done for single and multiple procedures for each arm. Comprehensive variable costs as well as fixed costs were calculated at each point of intervention and expressed in local currency ZAR (US$1=ZAR15.00). Costing was analysed for surgery and BNT subgroups (based on clinical success).
resultsThere were 101 patients enrolled in the trial. 54 in the BNT arm and 47 in the surgery arm. Cost for single surgery and single BNT was ZAR 7743.04 and 1713.14, respectively. A favourable clinical outcome was achieved in 72% of surgery arm and 37% of BNT arm. The mean cost for eventual favourable outcome in BNT arm was ZAR9158.08 and in surgery arm ZAR9124.27 (p=0.26). Mean cost in G1 was ZAR6328.45, in G2 ZAR7197.45, in G3 ZAR11891.93 and G4 ZAR12882.44 (p=0.018).
conclusionBNT has a cost-benefit in IE and is a viable option in the primary treatment of IE in resource constrained regions. Clinical outcomes and economic benefit in smaller angle of esotropia and younger patients are comparable to surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.