ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine-Based Screening Programs for Retinopathy of Prematurity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine-based retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening strategies compared with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) and the current standard of care (no screening) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Design: Decision-analytic cost-effectiveness analysis simulating costs and vision outcomes across alternative ROP screening strategies. Subjects: A simulated cohort of 10 000 qualifying preterm infants (birth weight ≤2000 g or gestational age ≤32 weeks) in neonatal intensive care units across Ghana were modeled for each screening strategy. Methods: Three strategies were compared: no screening, BIO, and telemedicine-based screening with nonphysician graders. A hybrid telemedicine approach with 10% of images graded by physicians was also evaluated. The model estimated disease detection, treatment, and vision outcomes, and calculated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses varied nonphysician grader specificity, ROP incidence, and physician evaluation time for BIO. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $2238 per QALY (1× Ghana's GDP per capita) was applied. Main Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per QALY gained and dominance relationships among strategies. Results: Compared with no screening, telemedicine-based screening with nonphysician graders yielded health benefits at a cost of $27 per QALY gained. Incorporating 10% physician grading into the telemedicine platform further improved outcomes at $1331 per QALY gained relative to nonphysician grading alone. Binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy was strongly dominated by the hybrid telemedicine strategy. Sensitivity analyses identified nonphysician grader specificity, disease incidence, and physician evaluation time for BIO as the most influential parameters; overall conclusions were robust across plausible ranges. Conclusions: Telemedicine-based ROP screening, particularly a hybrid approach incorporating limited physician grading, appears to be a cost-effective strategy for implementation in Ghana and may be applicable to other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.