ArticleBMJ open2026
Cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
introductionGlaucoma is an increasing global health problem and the leading cause of irreversible blindness which affects millions of people worldwide. Multiple studies on the cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening conducted at community, clinic or hospital in developed and developing countries have been conducted, but evidence from systematic reviews is lacking. Therefore, this systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening among adult populations across various countries and healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted in databases including PubMed using a combination of Medical Subject Headings such as glaucoma and cost-effectiveness analysis along with relevant keywords like screening. Following the predefined inclusion criteria, two reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstract and full text, and any disagreements will be discussed or resolved by a third reviewer. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for economic evaluations. Data will be extracted using the JBI economic evaluation data extraction form with any suitable modifications. JBI Dominance Ranking Matrix for economic evaluations will be used to summarise and compare the results for data synthesis. All reported costs will be converted into a single currency and year prior to synthesis. Cost-effectiveness evidence will be synthesised on the basis of cost per case detected or blindness prevented, cost per quality-adjusted life year gained or cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment will be conducted to evaluate the certainty of economic evidence, such as use of resources and expenditures, and to incorporate the results into the decision-making process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will analyse published peer-reviewed studies and targeted grey literature only and does not require ethics committee approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through conference presentations. Extracted data and supporting materials will be made available on reasonable request. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057560.
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.