Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review

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

doi:10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0

Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review

Ophthalmol Ther. 2023 Apr;12(2):789-807. doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0. Epub 2023 Feb 21.

Authors

José Ginel¹, Noemi Burguera², Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada^{2

3

4

5}, David Piñero^{6

7}, Alejandro Sáez-Martín⁸, Joaquín Fernández²

Affiliations

¹ Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain. joseginel@qvision.es.
² Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain.
³ Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Málaga, 29016, Málaga, Spain.
⁴ Department of Ophthalmology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Plaza del Hospital Civil, S/N. 29009, Málaga, Spain.
⁵ Department of Surgery, Ophthalmology, University of Sevilla, Doctor Fedriani, S/N, 41009, Seville, Spain.
⁶ Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
⁷ Department of Ophthalmology (IMQO-Oftalmar), Vithas Medimar International Hospital, Alicante, Spain.
⁸ Department 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.

Abstract

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

Methods: Systematic 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.

Results: Among 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.

Conclusions: Cataract 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.

Keywords: And cost–utility analysis; Cataract; Cost-effectiveness analysis.

Publication types

Review