Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Cost-effectiveness of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in patients with endothelial dysfunction in India.
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for Sustainability and Cost Optimization in Corneal Transplantation: From Surgeons’ PerspectiveTurkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness and perform cost-utility analysis of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) vs. penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in Indian population.
methodsThis was an institutional, ambispective, observational study. Patients who underwent PK or DSAEK for endothelial dysfunction were included and followed up for 2 years; those with other ocular comorbidities were excluded. The analysis was performed from the patient's perspective receiving subsidized treatment at a tertiary care hospital. Detailed history, ophthalmic examination, total expenditure by patient, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The main outcome measures were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), graft survival (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Utility values were based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with visual acuity outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software package, version 12.1; a value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 120 patients (PK: 60, DSAEK: 60) were included. At 2 years, for a similar logMAR BSCVA, [PK (0.32 ± 0.02), DSAEK (0.25 ± 0.02); P = 0.078], the overall cost for PK (13511.1 ± 803.3 INR) was significantly more than DSAEK (11092.9 ± 492.1 INR) (difference = 1952.6 INR; P = 0.01). ICER of DSAEK relative to PK was -39,052 INR for improvement in 1 logMAR unit BSCVA. ICUR of DSAEK relative to PK was -1,95,260 INR for improvement in 1 QALY.
conclusionDSAEK was more cost-effective than PK in patients with endothelial dysfunction at 2 years.
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.