Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2023
Systematic review of economic evaluations in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Woldetensaye Anania G, Patel Palak V, Koerner Jagger C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in health care quantitatively compare interventions using cost and outcomes data. These evaluations can aid in the adoption of new surgical or medical treatments and inform policy decisions regarding healthcare spending. Several common types of economic analysis exist (cost-benefit, cost-analysis, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility). We review all English-language economic evaluations in strabismus surgery and pediatric ophthalmology.
METHODS: An electronic literature search of the PubMed and Health Economic Evaluations databases was conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed the search string yield and assessed articles against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Outcome measures included journal of publication, year of publication, domain of ophthalmology, region/country of study, and type of economic evaluation.
RESULTS: We identified 62 articles. Cost-utility studies comprised 30% of evaluations. The most studied domain was retinopathy of prematurity (33%), followed by amblyopia and vision screening (24%) and cataracts (14%). The Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus published the most economic evaluations (15%) followed by Ophthalmology and Pediatrics. The number of published economic evaluations did not increase over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus have not increased over time. A minority (30%) of studies used cost utility-analysis, limiting comparisons to other domains of medicine. This suggests the need to alert pediatric ophthalmologists to the benefits of economic analysis, and cost-utility methodology specifically, to better inform and influence policy decisions regarding healthcare spending.
METHODS: An electronic literature search of the PubMed and Health Economic Evaluations databases was conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed the search string yield and assessed articles against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Outcome measures included journal of publication, year of publication, domain of ophthalmology, region/country of study, and type of economic evaluation.
RESULTS: We identified 62 articles. Cost-utility studies comprised 30% of evaluations. The most studied domain was retinopathy of prematurity (33%), followed by amblyopia and vision screening (24%) and cataracts (14%). The Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus published the most economic evaluations (15%) followed by Ophthalmology and Pediatrics. The number of published economic evaluations did not increase over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus have not increased over time. A minority (30%) of studies used cost utility-analysis, limiting comparisons to other domains of medicine. This suggests the need to alert pediatric ophthalmologists to the benefits of economic analysis, and cost-utility methodology specifically, to better inform and influence policy decisions regarding healthcare spending.