ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Economic Aspects in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Italy.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. 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.
- The economic impact of retinal diseases for which gene therapy is emerging: a systematic literature review.Health economics review · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is the most common cause of vision loss in diabetic patients. Currently, the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) are used as the first line of DME treatment and corticosteroid implants are usually used as a second-line treatment. These implants are a safe and effective therapeutic option that can improve the quality of life of DME patients by reducing the intravitreal injections number. We determined the economic impact related to DME, also from the social perspective, and the consequences of the increased use of the dexamethasone implant. Methods: The analysis compares two scenarios: the first based on the current rate of recourse to the therapeutic alternatives available in the Italian healthcare setting (as is) and the second based on the assumption of an increased recourse to dexamethasone implants (to be). The results are expressed both in terms of the resource absorption associated with the two scenarios and in terms of the cost differential yielded by their comparison. Results: The increased use of the dexamethasone implant allows considerable savings in terms of healthcare professionals' time, follow-up and productivity lost by patients/caregivers. These savings would reduce healthcare costs for the management of DME patients in Italy by €2,058,238 in 5 years. Conclusions: To optimize the healthcare resources allocation, it is necessary to implement treatments that yield not only cost reductions but also a clinical benefit for patients. The dexamethasone implant use is an example of DME management that generates value for patients, health system and society.
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.