ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2022
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Trabecular Bypass Devices Versus Usual Care for Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- From first generation to the next: evolution and research trends in iStent technology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Pairing iStent Inject Trabecular Micro-Bypass and iAccess Precision Blade Goniotomy in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether insertion of a trabecular bypass device (TBD) is a cost-effective intervention for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) with mild to moderate vision loss in the Australian setting.
methodsWe performed a cost-utility analysis of TBD implantation in conjunction with cataract surgery or as a standalone procedure in patients with OAG. The model used a Monte Carlo simulation to follow individual patients through a glaucoma treatment algorithm that included TBD and compared the costs and outcomes with those of patients simulated through an algorithm without TBD (usual care). The model tracked the intraocular pressure (IOP) of individual patients and then, based on this IOP, tracked the progression of the patient's glaucoma. Utility values were assigned dependent on severity of glaucoma. The analysis took the perspective of the Australian health care system. The main outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TBD versus usual care for the treatment of OAG.
resultsIn the cataract surgery population, TBD surgery was associated with incremental healthcare costs of A$177 and 0.0726 QALYs per patient, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of A$2430. In the standalone population, the overall incremental cost of TBD surgery versus usual care was A$2234. With QALYs gained of 0.1526 per patient, this equated to an incremental cost per QALY gained ratio of A$14,644.
conclusionThe incremental cost per QALY estimates for TBD were below thresholds generally accepted by Australian healthcare payers, suggesting that TBD is a cost-effective intervention for patients with primary OAG in the Australian setting.
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.