ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Willingness-to-pay and parametric trends in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies in ophthalmology.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Cost Burden and Cost-Effectiveness of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the frequencies of input parameters in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) within ophthalmology, particularly in willingness-to-pay (WTP), and to assess trends over time in studies conducted in the United States. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional analysis of CEAs from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry spanning 1993 to 2022 was conducted, including all studies evaluating diseases of the eye and adnexa. The primary outcomes measured included trends in WTP thresholds, funding sources, types of interventions and disease classifications.
resultsA total of 82 US-based CEAs met the inclusion criteria. All studies assessed outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). WTP thresholds of US$50 000 (41%) and US$100 000 (39%) were most frequently reported, with US$150 000 emerging in 9% of studies since 2019. Discounting at 3.0% for costs and QALYs was universally applied. Government (33%), nonprofit (29%) and pharmaceutical (17%) funding predominated. Pharmaceutical-funded studies often employed higher WTP thresholds of US$100 000 (29%) and US$150 000 (29%). The most common intervention types were surgical (40%) and pharmaceutical (40%), whereas diseases of the choroid and retina (43%) were most frequently studied. Healthcare perspectives (17 studies) were more commonly reported than societal perspectives (6 studies).
conclusionsUS-based ophthalmology CEAs commonly use US$50 000-$100 000 WTP thresholds and a 3.0% discount rate, with higher thresholds emerging recently. Public and nonprofit funding predominates, focusing on retinal diseases and surgical or pharmaceutical interventions. Reassessing fixed WTP thresholds and incorporating societal perspectives could improve CEAs' relevance, ensuring alignment with evolving economic and healthcare landscapes.
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.