Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36809595›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2023

Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review.

José Ginel, Noemi Burguera, Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada, David Piñero, Alejandro Sáez-Martín, Joaquín Fernández

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Surgical interventions for presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

José GinelQvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain. joseginel@qvision.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2965-3577
Noemi BurgueraQvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3735-6452
Carlos Rocha-de-LossadaQvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7464-2493
David PiñeroDepartment of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1546-4807
Alejandro Sáez-MartínDepartment of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento S/N, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120, Almería, Spain.
Joaquín FernándezQvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4626-3741
University of Almería · ESHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga · ESUniversity of Alicante · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts.

methodsSystematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups.

resultsAmong 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs.

conclusionsCataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review.

Indexed as

And cost–utility analysisCataractCost-effectiveness analysis

Identifiers

PMID36809595
PMCPMC10011294
OpenAlexW4321434926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.