ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026
Cost Burden and Cost-Effectiveness of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sriranganathan Aswen, Dhillon Jobanpreet, Mandelcorn Efrem, Felfeli Tina
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the economic burden and cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions and management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase and Scopus from inception to March 2025 for articles reporting economic burden, cost analyses, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility outcomes related to RRD repair. Primary outcomes were the cost of RRD adverse events and repair. Secondary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of RRD repair procedures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023446301).
RESULTS: A total of 46 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most studies were conducted in the United States (48%) and adopted payer or provider analytic perspectives. In 23 studies reporting RRD as an adverse event of another condition or intervention, the mean cost of repair was $3,648±2,986, inflated to 2024 US dollars (USD). Across 22 studies assessing cost comparisons of RRD interventions, the cost of the pneumatic retinopexy (PR), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and scleral buckle (SB) surgery ranged from $1,093-$4,761, $5,443-$9,903, and $4,411-$8,131, respectively. Considerable heterogeneity existed across economic models, analytic perspectives, willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, and time horizons used in cost-effectiveness studies. Indirect costs, including caregiver burden and productivity loss, were infrequently reported.
CONCLUSION: Although available evidence suggests that RRD is generally associated with favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes, conclusions are limited by methodological heterogeneity, predominance of evidence from high-income settings, and inconsistent reporting of indirect costs. Broader and more standardized economic evaluations, particularly in non-Western settings, are needed to better characterize the global economic impact of RRD repair.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase and Scopus from inception to March 2025 for articles reporting economic burden, cost analyses, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility outcomes related to RRD repair. Primary outcomes were the cost of RRD adverse events and repair. Secondary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of RRD repair procedures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023446301).
RESULTS: A total of 46 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most studies were conducted in the United States (48%) and adopted payer or provider analytic perspectives. In 23 studies reporting RRD as an adverse event of another condition or intervention, the mean cost of repair was $3,648±2,986, inflated to 2024 US dollars (USD). Across 22 studies assessing cost comparisons of RRD interventions, the cost of the pneumatic retinopexy (PR), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and scleral buckle (SB) surgery ranged from $1,093-$4,761, $5,443-$9,903, and $4,411-$8,131, respectively. Considerable heterogeneity existed across economic models, analytic perspectives, willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, and time horizons used in cost-effectiveness studies. Indirect costs, including caregiver burden and productivity loss, were infrequently reported.
CONCLUSION: Although available evidence suggests that RRD is generally associated with favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes, conclusions are limited by methodological heterogeneity, predominance of evidence from high-income settings, and inconsistent reporting of indirect costs. Broader and more standardized economic evaluations, particularly in non-Western settings, are needed to better characterize the global economic impact of RRD repair.