Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review

Abstract

Economic evaluations are tools for assessing emerging technologies and a complement for decision-making in healthcare systems. However, this topic may not be familiar for doctors and academics, who may be confused when interpreting the results of studies using these tools. Cataract is a disease which has received special attention in healthcare systems due to its high incidence, the great impact that it could have on patients’ quality of life, and the fact that it can be definitively solved in almost all cases through cataract surgery. Historically, economic evaluations in cataract surgery have been conducted for many purposes by simply assessing whether the surgery is cost-effective for specific questions related to the implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses, surgical techniques, optimizing assessments, preventing diseases or complications, etc. Moreover, although there are systematic reviews about cataract surgery and narrative reviews introducing the concept of economic evaluations, as far as we know, no previous study has been conducted that synthesizes and integrates evidence coming from both fields. Thus, the purpose of this narrative review is to introduce doctors and academics to economic evaluation tools, to describe how these have been historically applied to cataract surgery, and to provide special considerations for the correct interpretation of economic studies.

摘要

经济评价是评估新兴技术的工具, 也是医保系统决策的补充。然而, 医生和学者对此并不熟悉, 他们在使用这些工具解释研究结果时可能会感到困惑。白内障是在医疗系统中受到特别关注的眼病, 因为其发病率高, 对患者的生活质量影响大, 几乎所有 (因白内障视力低下的) 病例都可以通过白内障手术解决。从历史上看, 白内障手术的经济评价有很多目的, 通过简单地评估手术是否具有成本效益来解决与多焦人工晶状体植入、手术技术、优化评估、预防疾病或并发症等相关的特定问题。此外, 尽管有关于白内障手术的系统综述和引入经济评价概念的综述, 但目前还没有综合和整合这两个领域证据的研究。因此, 本叙述性综述旨在向医生和学者介绍经济评价工具, 描述这些工具在历史上如何应用于白内障手术, 并提供正确解读经济研究的特别注意事项。

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Decision diagram for identifying the technique used in the economic evaluation.
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goodacre SW, McCabe C. An introduction to economic evaluation. Emerg Med J 2002;19:198–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonsson B. Economic evaluation of health care technologies. Acta Endocrinol. 1993;128:50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ko F, Frick KD, Tzu J, He M, Congdon N. Willingness to pay for potential enhancements to a low-cost cataract surgical package in rural southern China. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e54–e60. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L51553590&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dean WH, Sherwin JC, Kumwenda S, Angeletti M, Wiehler U. Willingness to Pay for Cataract Surgery in Post-operative Cataract Patients in Rural Malawi. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2012;19:265–71. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L365658140&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shrestha MK. Willingness to pay for cataract surgery in Kathmandu valley. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:319–20. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L38333704&from=export.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown GC, Brown MM, Menezes A, Busbee BG, Lieske HB, Lieske PA. Cataract Surgery Cost Utility Revisited in 2012. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2367–76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24246824/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown GC, Brown MM, Busbee BG. Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the United States for the year 2018. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45:927–38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31262482/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:606–12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11874769/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hiratsuka Y. Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in Japan: A probabilistic Markov modeling study. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2013;57:391–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-013-0238-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tuominen R, Immonen I, Raivio I. Economic evaluation of cataract surgery: a comparison between IOL and non-IOL techniques. Acta Ophthalmol. 1988;66:577–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffiths UK, Bozzani FM, Gheorghe A, Mwenge L, Gilbert C. Cost-effectiveness of eye care services in Zambia. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:6 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24568593/.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Marseille E. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in a public health eye care programme in Nepal. Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74:319–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore DB, Slabaugh MA. Surgical Outcomes and Cost Basis for Resident-Performed Cataract Surgery in an Uninsured Patient Population. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agarwal A, Kumar DA. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22:15–8.

  15. Schulz CB, Kennedy A, Rymer BC. Trends in ophthalmology journals: a five-year bibliometric analysis (2009-2013). Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9:1669–75. http://www.ijo.cn/gjyken/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20161122&flag=1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wen P-F, Dong Z-Y, Li B-Z, Jia Y-Q. Bibliometric analysis of literature on cataract research in PubMed (2001–2013). J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:1781–3. https://journals.lww.com/02158034-201508000-00031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillemin F, De Wit M, Fautrel B, Grimm S, Joore M, Boonen A. Steps in implementing a health economic evaluation. RMD Open. 2020;6:6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Turner HC, Archer RA, Downey LE, Isaranuwatchai W, Chalkidou K, Jit M, et al. An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations. Front Public Heal. 2021;9:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kapse R, Agarwal S, Rishikeshi N, Deshpande M, Kulkarni S, Deshpand R, et al. Cost analysis of pediatric cataract surgery in a tertiary eye care hospital in Western India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:420 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35086208/.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. UK Health Security Agency. Cost consequence analysis: health economic studies. Guidance. 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-consequence-analysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed August 4, 2022.

  21. Neel ST. A cost-minimization analysis comparing immediate sequential cataract surgery and delayed sequential cataract surgery from the payer, patient, and societal perspectives in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:1282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cernat A, Jamieson M, Kavelaars R, Khalili S, Bhambhwani V, Mireskandari K, et al. Immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in children: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2022;106:211–7. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L633488887&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neel ST. A cost and policy analysis comparing immediate sequential cataract surgery and delayed sequential cataract surgery from the physician perspective in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:1359–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. UK Health Security Agency. Cost effectiveness analysis: health economic studies. Guidance. 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-effectiveness-analysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed August 4, 2022.

  25. Quist SW, de Jong LA, van Asten F, Knoester P, Postma MJ, Freriks RD. Cost-minimisation analysis of a treat-and-extend regimen with anti-VEGFs in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260:1083–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05359-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ngan K, Fraser E, Buller S, Buller A. A cost minimisation analysis comparing iStent accompanying cataract surgery and selective laser trabeculoplasty versus topical glaucoma medications in a public healthcare setting in New Zealand. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256:2181–9. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00417-018-4104-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maxwell WA, Waycaster CR, D’Souza AO, Meissner BL, Hileman K. A United States cost–benefit comparison of an apodized, diffractive, presbyopia-correcting, multifocal intraocular lens and a conventional monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1855–61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19006730/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. UK Health Security Agency. Cost utility analysis: health economic studies. Guidance. 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-utility-analysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed August 4, 2022.

  29. UK Health Security Agency. Cost benefit analysis: health economic studies. Guidance. 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-benefit-analysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed August 4, 2022.

  30. Webb J, Fife-Schaw C, Ogden J. A randomised control trial and cost-consequence analysis to examine the effects of a print-based intervention supported by internet tools on the physical activity of UK cancer survivors. Public Health. 2019;171:106–15. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350619301143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:593–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Drummond MF. Economic aspects of cataract. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:1147–53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3148114/.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brown GC. Vision and quality-of-life. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:473–511.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lansingh VC. Use of Global Visual Acuity Data in a Time Trade-off Approach to Calculate the Cost Utility of Cataract Surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1183 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19752429/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eye Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Team (ECCERT). Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:333–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-011-0041-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tahhan N, Papas E, Fricke T, Frick K, Holden B. Utility and uncorrected refractive error. Investig. Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54. Available at: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L628731005&from=export.

  37. Kobelt G, Lundström M, Stenevi U. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1742–9. https://journals.lww.com/02158034-200210000-00021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown GC, Brown MM, Chaudhry I, Stein JD. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Bias in Ophthalmic Cost-Utility Analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139:389 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33538789/.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Weale M. A cost-benefit analysis of cataract surgery based on the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing. J Health Econ. 2011;30:730–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lugnér AK, Krabbe PFM. An overview of the time trade-off method: concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2020;20:331–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2020.1779062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Arnesen TM, Norheim OF. Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: Time out for time trade off. Med Humanit. 2003;29:81–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Leung EH, Gibbons A, Koch DD. Cost-Effectiveness of Preoperative OCT in Cataract Evaluation for Multifocal Intraocular Lens. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:859–65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32173111/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Räsänen P, Krootila K, Sintonen H, Leivo T, Koivisto AM, Ryynänen OP, et al. Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Asakawa K, Rolfson D, Senthilselvan A, Feeny D, Johnson JA. Health Utilities Index Mark 3 showed valid in Alzheimer Disease, arthritis, and cataracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:733–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schweitzer C, Brezin A, Cochener B, Monnet D, Germain C, Roseng S, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT): a multicentre participant-masked randomised superiority and cost-effectiveness trial. Lancet. 2020;395:212–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin CC, Rose-Nussbaumer JR, Al-Mohtaseb ZN, Pantanelli SM, Steigleman WA, Hatch KM, et al. Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery. Ophthalmology. 2022;129:946–54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35570159/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Day AC, Burr JM, Bennett K, Dore CJ, Bunce C, Hunter R, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery: randomized noninferiority trial with 1-year outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46:1360–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Larco P, Larco C, Borroni D, Godin F, Piñero DP, Rocha-de-Lossada C, et al. Efficacy of femtosecond laser for anterior capsulotomy in complex white cataracts. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2023;46:501–9. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0181551223000487.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Abell RG, Vote BJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery versus Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:10–16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24120324/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jongsareejit A, Wiriyaluppa C, Kongsap P, Phumipan S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and phacoemulsification (PE). J Med Assoc Thail. 2012;95:212–20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22435252/.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Khan A, Amitava A, Rizvi SA, Siddiqui Z, Kumari N, Grover S. Cost-effectiveness analysis should continually assess competing health care options especially in high volume environments like cataract surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015;63:496. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L615153888&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rochmah TN, Wulandari A, Dahlui M, Ernawaty, Wulandari RD. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Cataract Surgery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6010. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32824872/.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Wulandari A, Dahlui M, E, Wulandari RD, Rochmah TN. Cost effectiveness analysis between small incision cataract surgery and phacoemulsification. J Heal Transl Med. 2020;23:231–7. https://jummec.um.edu.my/index.php/jummec/article/view/25860.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Manaf MRA, Aljunid SM, Annuar FH, Leong CK, Mansor N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: Extracapsular cataract extraction versus phacoemulsification. Med J Indones. 2007;16:25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Baltussen R, Sylla M, Mariotti SP. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cataract surgery: a global and regional analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:338–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Rizal AM, Aljunid SM, Normalina M, Hanom AF, Chuah KL, Suzainah Y, et al. Cost analysis of cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: a single blind randomised clinical trial comparing extracapsular cataract extraction and phacoemulsification. Med J Malays. 2003;58:380–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14750378/.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Asimakis P, Coster DJ, Lewis DJ. Cost effectiveness of cataract surgery. A comparison of conventional extracapsular surgery and phacoemulsification at Flinders Medical Centre. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1996;24:319–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kristianslund O, Dalby M, Moe MC, Drolsum L. Cost‐effectiveness analysis in a randomized trial of late in‐the‐bag intraocular lens dislocation surgery: repositioning versus exchange. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97:771–7. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L627183345&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Malvankar-Mehta MS, Filek R, Iqbal M, Shakir A, Mao A, Si F, et al. Immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery: a cost-effective procedure. Can J Ophthalmol 2013;48:482–8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24314408/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lundström M, Albrecht S, Roos P. Immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery: an analysis of costs and patient value. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Sach TH, Foss AJE, Gregson RM, Zaman A, Osborn F, Masud T, et al. Second-eye cataract surgery in elderly women: a cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Eye. 2010;24:276–83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19444295/.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the second eye. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2310–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14644712/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Boyd M, Kvizhinadze G, Kho A, Wilson G, Wilson N. Cataract surgery for falls prevention and improving vision: modelling the health gain, health system costs and cost-effectiveness in a high-income country. Inj Prev. 2020;26:302–9. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L628439610&from=export.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Boyd M, Kho A, Wilson G, Wilson N. Expediting cataract surgery in New Zealand is cost-effective for falls prevention and improving vision-so what might be the next steps? N Z Med J. 2019;132:73–8. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L629200987&from=export.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Frampton G, Harris P, Cooper K, Lotery A, Shepherd J, GF, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–206. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta18680/.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Meltzer ME, Congdon N, Kymes SM, Yan X, Lansingh VC, Sisay A, et al. Cost and Expected Visual Effect of Interventions to Improve Follow-up After Cataract Surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:85 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27978578/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Jastrzebski A, Villafranca A, Sethi S, Bellan L. Safety and comparative costs of preoperative assessments for cataract surgery: traditional mandatory assessment versus a novel graded assessment system. Can J Anesth. 2016;63:842–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Naeim A, Keeler EB, Gutierrez PR, Wilson MR, Reuben D, Mangione CM. Is cataract surgery cost-effective among older patients with a low predicted probability for improvement in reported visual functioning? Med Care. 2006;44:982–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Dimock J, Robman LD, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Cost-effectiveness of digital cataract assessment. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27:208–10. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1606.1999.00207.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hopkins RB, Tarride J-E, Bowen J, Blackhouse G, O’Reilly D, Campbell K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of reducing wait times for cataract surgery in Ontario. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;43:213–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18347625/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Jain S, Chauhan A, Rajshekar K, Vashist P, Gupta P, Mathur U, et al. Generic and vision related quality of life associated with different types of cataract surgeries and different types of intraocular lens implantation. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0240036.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Smith AF, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G, Berto P, Brueggenjuergen B, Magaz S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of PMMA, silicone, or acrylic intra-ocular lenses in cataract surgery in four European countries. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:343–51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16272054/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Colin J, Praud D, Touboul D, Schweitzer C. Incidence of glistenings with the latest generation of yellow-tinted hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1140–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.01.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Simons RWP, Visser N. van den Biggelaar FJHM, Nuijts RMMA, Webers CAB, Bauer NJC, et al. Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45:146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Orme ME, Paine AC, Teale CW, Kennedy LM. Cost-effectiveness of the AMOArray Multifocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:162–8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30471848/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hu JQ, Sarkar R, Murphy J, Afshari NA. Cost-effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses compared to monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L628536790&from=export.

  77. Athanasiov P, Bala C, Holland J, Dhariwal M, Gupta A, Rathi H. A cost-effectiveness analysis of AcrySof IQ vivity intraocular lens from private health fund perspective in Australia. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;49:878–9.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Dobrez DG, Calhoun EA. Testing subject comprehension of utility questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:369–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lin J-C, Yang M-C. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation for Cataract Patients in Taiwan. Clin Ther. 2014;36:1422–30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25146366/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. De Vries NE, Laurendeau C, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G, Nuijts RMMA. Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. Eye. 2010;24:663–72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19575029/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR in cataract surgery in four European countries. BMC Ophthalmol. 2008;8:12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Simons RWP, Wielders LHP, Nuijts RMMA, Veldhuizen CA, van den Biggelaar FJHM, Winkens B, et al. Economic evaluation of prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetic patients: ESCRS PREMED study report 6. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:555–63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33009281/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Concept and design: Ginel, Burguera, Fernández; Acquisition of data: Ginel, Burguera; Analysis and interpretation of data: Ginel, Burguera, Piñero, Sáez-Martín, Haro De Rosario, Fernández; Drafting of the manuscript: Ginel, Burguera, Fernández; Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: Piñero, Sáez-Martín, Haro De Rosario; Obtaining funding: Fernández; Administrative, technical, or logistic support: Fernández; Supervision: Piñero, Sáez-Martín, Haro De Rosario, Fernández.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Ginel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ginel, J., Burguera, N., Piñero, D. et al. Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review. Eye (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-02965-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-02965-x

Search

Quick links