ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04265846 (Prospective Clinical Study of Different Intraocular Lens Implantation Designed for the Correction of Presbyopia), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Prospective Clinical Study of Different Intraocular Lens Implantation Designed for the Correction of Presbyopia
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical interventions for presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Navigating the Lens Labyrinth: A Practical Approach to Intraocular Lens Classification and Selection.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Lived experience and lessons learned from the support of two secondary eye care units to improve cataract surgery and refractive services in two regions of Ethiopia: health system-strengthening support.International health · 2025Article
- Article
- Four oral iron supplements for treating iron-deficiency anemia during pregnancy in China: a cost-effectiveness and budget analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Peripheral Defocus and Myopia Management: A Mini-Review.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to explore a method to rank the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction in diverse strategies of bilateral cataract surgery to provide references for healthcare policymakers in rationalizing resource utilization and surgeons in customizing patient management.
methodsThe cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective single-blind two-center clinical trial included seven strategies in bilateral cataract surgery: monofocal, monovision, diffractive bifocal, blended, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) strategies. The effectiveness according to the objective spectacle independence rate (hereafter "rate", a novel indicator defined as the proportion of patients with binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity all better than 0.1 logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), costs, average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs, $/1% rate), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/1% incremental rate) were estimated.
resultsIn 194 participants (388 eyes), the trifocal strategy achieved the highest rate [93.10% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.8-102.35%)]. The refractive bifocal strategy had the minimum ACER [$45.54/1% rate (95% CI 34.57-56.50)], followed by the blended [$59.10/1% rate (95% CI 31.72-86.48)], diffractive bifocal [$69.06/1% rate (95% CI 30.89-107.21)], EDOF [$72.85/1% rate (95% CI 52.02-93.70)], trifocal [$93.01/1% rate (95% CI 83.23-102.79)], monovision [$136.83/1% rate (95% CI - 55.40 to 329.14)], and monofocal [$264.45/1% rate (95% CI - 97.45 to 626.55)] strategies. Compared with the refractive bifocal strategy, the probabilities that the trifocal strategy (ICER $289.74/1% incremental rate) is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 81.7% and 93.2%, respectively, at the wiliness-to-pay threshold of one and three times China's annual disposable income per capita in 2021 per 10% incremental rates.
conclusionsCost-effectiveness analysis with ACER and ICER according to objective spectacle independence rate is a helpful tool to identify highly cost-effective presbyopia-correcting strategies in cataract surgery for clinical and policy decisions.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT04265846).
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.