ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Cost-Utility Analysis of Immediate Sequential and Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery in a Middle-Income Country.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the cost-utility of immediate sequential versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS vs DSBCS) in a real-world setting at a Thai government hospital. Patients and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, eligible patients undergoing ISBCS or DSBCS followed a standardized surgical and postoperative protocol. In ISBCS, the second eye was treated as a new case with full instrument replacement. DSBCS followed the same procedure with a surgeon-determined interval between surgeries. Cost-utility analysis was conducted from a societal perspective, with cost-effectiveness defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below Thailand's willingness-to-pay threshold (160,000 THB per quality-adjusted life-year [~US$4600]). Sensitivity analyses (one-way and bootstrapping) tested the robustness of the results. Results: Among 99 enrolled patients (45 ISBCS, 54 DSBCS), 89 were included in the analysis (44 ISBCS, 45 DSBCS) after excluding eight DSBCS patients and one ISBCS patient based on the study's exclusion criteria. Compared to DSBCS, the ISBCS group was younger but similar in other baseline characteristics. No intraoperative complications occurred, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. The cost-utility analysis, using a 3-month time horizon, identified ISBCS as the dominant strategy, with a cost saving of 3335 THB (~US$100) per patient and a slightly higher effectiveness. These findings were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: ISBCS offers substantial cost savings, comparable safety, and a slight quality-of-life advantage over DSBCS, making it a cost-effective option for bilateral cataract surgery in Thailand.
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.