SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Health economics and manual small-incision cataract surgery: An illustrative mini review.
Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Pooled it
- Manual small incision cataract surgery: An ergonomic solution to tackle cataract backlog and challenging situations.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Comparison of Cost-Utility, Visual Acuity, and Humanistic Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Performed in the United States Versus International Outreach Campaigns.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cataract extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is a popular technique of cataract extraction. Full economic evaluation of different techniques is of value to policy makers. This was a systematic review of published literature to present a brief overview of evidence available in respect of economic evaluation measures like cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost parameters in cataract patients regarding MSICS. The data on these was sparse and heterogeneous. Direct costs of MSICS were lower than phacoemulsification (PE): $25.55 (PE) to $17.03 (MSICS) in India, $15 (MSICS) to $70 (PE) in Nepal, and $62.25 (MSICS) to $104.15 (PE) in Thailand. The cost utility analysis for MSICS demonstrated savings of $79.57 (INR6175) per gain in LogMAR BCVA, $8.91 (INR691) per QALY gained and $1.42 (INR110) per VF 14 score increment in India. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) $368.20 (13,215.50 Baht) for MSICS was better than $489.30 (17,561.70 Baht) for PE in Thailand. ICER for femto laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared to was €10,703 in femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT) study. The corrected ICER for PE against MSICS is €146.50. The limited data available demonstrates that MSICS is the most cost-effective technique among FLACS, PE, and MSICS. MSICS scores over other existing alternatives of cataract extraction from cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization approaches. Further research is required in this area.
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.