Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review

REVIEW Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review Jose ´Ginel .Noemi Burguera .Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada . David Pin ˜ero .Alejandro Sa ´ez-Martı ´n.Joaquı ´n Ferna ´ndez Received: December 30, 2022 / Accepted: February 3, 2023 / Published online: February 21, 2023 ÓThe Author(s) 2023 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 werepublishedbyauthorsfrom institutionsinthe 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 gainaftercataractsurgery, waitingtimeofcataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow- Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0. J. Ginel (&)N. Burguera C. Rocha-de-Lossada  J. Ferna ´ndez Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Almerı ´a Hospital, 04120 Almerı ´a, Spain e-mail: [email protected] C. Rocha-de-Lossada Department of Ophthalmology, VITHAS Ma ´laga, 29016 Ma ´laga, Spain C. Rocha-de-Lossada Department of Ophthalmology, Regional University Hospital of Ma ´laga, Plaza del Hospital Civil, S/N. 29009 Ma ´laga, Spain C. Rocha-de-Lossada Department of Surgery, Ophthalmology, University of Sevilla, Doctor Fedriani, S/N, 41009 Seville, Spain D. Pin ˜ero Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain D. Pin ˜ero Department of Ophthalmology (IMQO-Oftalmar), Vithas Medimar International Hospital, Alicante, Spain A. Sa ´ez-Martı ´n Department of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Almerı ´a, Ctra. Sacramento S/N, La Can ˜ada de San Urbano, 04120 Almerı ´a, Spain Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0 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-oph- thalmic 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: Cataract; Cost-effectiveness analysis; And cost–utility analysis Key Summary Points Costs of healthcare are increasing, and therefore the importance of quality and efficiency is higher. Economic evaluations are used as a source of information by economists and healthcare providers to make the best decisions. In the ophthalmology field, the economic evaluation of healthcare has become an important area to explore. Several studies have analyzed the economic impact of vision impairment due to cataracts; however, there are still different areas to investigate and gaps to find in the published literature. A systematic mapping review was conducted to identify gaps in the literature and to analyze and categorize the existing evidence of economic evaluations in the ophthalmic area of cataracts that can be helpful for guiding future research. The results provide evidence that 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. INTRODUCTION Cataract is the leading cause of blindness and the second most common cause of vision impairment in adults [1]. In 2020, approximately 596 million people had distance vision impairment worldwide, of whom 43 million were blind and 83.48 million had moderate or severe vision impairment (MSVI) [1,2]. Vision impairment and eye health can impact general health and well-being, thereby reducing quality of life [3]. In spite of the high rate of MSVI, more than 90% have a preventable treatable cause, such as cataracts, with existing highly cost-effective interventions [1]. Currently, the costs of healthcare are increasing, and therefore the importance of quality and efficiency is higher. In the ophthalmology field, the economic evaluation of healthcare has become an important area to explore, which is getting more common as healthcare is becoming more expensive [4]. Nevertheless, in these times, how much is one willing to invest in terms of vision health in society? Several studies have analyzed the economic impact of vision impairment due to cataracts and have summarized what is actually known [1,4–7], even though there are still different areas to investigate and gaps to find in the published literature. There are different types of economic evaluation in healthcare: cost–consequence analysis (CCA), cost-minimization analysis (CMA), costeffectiveness analysis (CEA), cost–utility analysis (CUA), and cost–benefit analysis (CBA) [8]. Studies of CEA measure the effects of health outcomes in physical units, such as visual acuity (VA), and patient-reported outcomes (PRO); however, one cannot compare costs and different health interventions which are not in the same units [9]. Comparisons of costs and different health interventions are possible owing to CUA [10]. In contrast to cost-effectiveness studies, which use measurable outcomes, CUA use the dimensionless utility as the outcome parameter. The utility value has been quantified by decision theory methods and psychometric survey methods [7]. One of the most commonly used decision theory methods is the time trade- 790 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 off (TTO), by which participants have to specify the survival probability they will tolerate to eliminate the medical condition [11]. The higher the number of life years treated (TTO) or the greater the willingness to take risk, the lower the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with the medical condition. HRQoL has been considered a utility variable, with many ways existing to measure it, the most widely used among others being the 5-dimen- sion EuroQol (EQ5D), Health Utilities Index Mark (HUI3), and the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) [12]. The CUA is a type of CEA in which health effects are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) [13] or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in an attempt to capture the two most important features of a health intervention: the effect on survival measured in terms of life years and the effect on quality of life [8]. Several alternatives have been proposed as a unit measure of the CUA; however, the most accepted and used is the QALY [14]. QALYs are calculated by weighting each time interval in a given state by its ‘‘utility’’ on a scale ranging from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health or normal vision) [13,15,16]. The utility value of a patient is a reflection of their preferences, and describes how a patient is able to shape their daily living tasks and allows an objective measurement of quality of life associated with a health state [17]. The higher the utility value, the better quality of life associated with a health state; the lower the value, the poorer the quality of life [18]. Therefore, an improvement in utility value can be used as an objective measurement of efficacy of any medical process to improve a patient’s quality of life [17]. Considering the exponential increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the last decade, there is a need to evaluate the existing evidence using systematic methods. Evidence mapping is one of these emerging methodologies to analyze, categorize, and identify gaps in the literature [19,20]. For this reason the aim of this study was to map the existing evidence of economic evaluations in the ophthalmic area of cataracts that can be helpful for guiding future research. The article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. MATERIAL AND METHODS A systematic mapping review was conducted, which is one of the 14 types of reviews in the family of systematic reviews [21]. This type of review has been developed to describe the state of knowledge for a given question within a particular topic and it describes results narratively to answer the question. The term ‘‘scoping review’’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘‘mapping review’’ owing to their methodological similarities. However, they can be distinguished from scoping reviews, because the subsequent outcome may involve further review of primary research, which is not known previously [21]. Sources of Information and Search Strategy A comprehensive literature search was performed in June 2021 using the following bibliographical databases: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science (WOS). Moreover, an additional search of publications was performed in a specialized database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination CRD’s NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED) [22,23], which contains summaries of economic evaluations. The keywords used in the strategy search were cost-ef- fectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis, and cataracts. The search strategy included the ‘‘cost-effectiveness analysis’’ because some authors refer to healthcare economic analyses measured as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) cost-effectiveness analyses, whereas those in countries other than the USA refer to them as cost–utility analyses [24]. The final search for each database is shown in Table 1. Additionally, the search with the descriptors used is summarized in the Supplementary Material. The final literature search was concluded on June 17, 2022. Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 791 Inclusion Criteria of Studies The study included full economic evaluations that had to be original articles conducting a CUA or CEA in the field of cataracts. The population of interest for this mapping review was all individuals with cataracts regardless of their age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status. However, studies with a population having disease additional to cataracts were excluded. No restrictions were applied with regard to study design, although systematic reviews, whose main objective is to summarize results of costeffectiveness or cost–utility analyses, were excluded. Only systematic reviews of randomized control studies (RCT) and observational studies which conduct an economic evaluation of the summarized data were included. Additionally, studies about expert guidelines or opinions, and non-original articles were excluded. Extraction and Analysis of Data Two reviewers (JG and NB) independently screened titles and abstracts and then obtained full-text articles that could be considered as potentially relevant. Inclusion assessment was done by one reviewer (JG) and checked by the second reviewer (NB). Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by deliberation and consensus, which included an impartial third reviewer if needed. A single reviewer was sufficient for the data extraction and the verification of data extraction of a random sample. However, a second reviewer performed all verification of data extraction of a random sample to minimize bias [25]. The definition of research questions (RQs) is a key methodological aspect for a successful systematic mapping review [26,27]. For this systematic mapping review, four RQs were defined: RQ1 How many papers have been published on economic evaluations of cataracts? Is there any temporal trend? What is the geographical distribution of the review authors? RQ2 What were the most commonly investigated economic evaluation techniques? RQ3 Which areas are the focus of research in the economic evaluation of cataracts? RQ4 Which were the variables most commonly included in the economic evaluation? RESULTS Literature Search Results The literature search identified 1632 citations, from which 648 were excluded as duplicates and 984 records were screened. Of these, 242 reports were selected for full-text review and assessed for eligibility. Finally, 56 studies were included in the mapping review (Fig. 1, PRISMA flow diagram) [28] (Supplementary Table 5). The four previously detailed research questions Table 1 Search strategy Database Search strategy Pubmed (cataract*[Title/Abstract] OR cataract*[MeSH Terms]) AND (analysis,cost[mh:noexp] OR effectiveness,cost[mh:noexp] OR ‘‘cost utility’’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘‘effectiveness analysis’’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘‘cost effectiveness’’[Title/Abstract] OR QALY[Title/Abstract]) Embase (’cost benefit analysis’/de OR ’cost effectiveness analysis’/de OR ’cost effectiveness analysis’ OR ’cost utility analysis’/de) AND ’cataract’:ab,ti WOS (((TI = (‘‘cost benefit*’’)) OR AB = (‘‘cost benefit*’’)) OR ((TI = (‘‘cost utility*’’)) OR AB = (‘‘cost utility*’’)) OR ((TI = (‘‘cost effective*’’)) OR AB = (‘‘cost effective*’’))) AND ((TI = (CATARACT*)) OR AB = (CATARACT*)) CRD NHS (MeSH DESCRIPTOR Cost–Benefit Analysis EXPLODE ALL TREES) AND (CATARACT) 792 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 are described in the following section based on the selected literature. RQ1. How many papers have been published on economic evaluations of cataracts? Is there any temporal trend? What is the geographical distribution of the review authors? As shown in Fig. 2, the earliest study included was published in 1988. No more economic evaluations of cataracts were included until 1996. However, there was not a progressive increase of published studies until 2002, growing from 4 studies published to 56 in 2022. The last 4 years have seen the greatest increase of studies published. Economic studies were published by authors from many countries over the world; however, the majority were carried out by researchers from institutions in the USA (n= 7), followed by the UK (n= 5). RQ2. What were the most commonly investigated economic evaluation techniques? As shown in Supplementary Table 5, from 56 studies, 45 were described as a CEA, which compares the cost effects of cataract interventions and assesses the impact on specific clinical interventions, such as VA or PRO. An extension of the CEA is the CUA, by which the cost effects of cataract interventions are evaluated in terms Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram illustrating literature research and selection process Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 793 of quantity (life years) and quality of life (QALYs). RQ3. Which areas are the focus of research in the economic evaluation of cataracts? As a result of classifying publications according to the principal areas of research, the majority of the studies were classified as cataract surgery economic evaluations (n= 43) (Tables 2,3,4,5,6, and 7) followed by intraocular lenses (IOL) (n= 13) (Table 8). Among the economic evaluations applied to cataract surgery or IOLs, the studies were classified into categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as surgical techniques (Table 2), cataract surgery costs (Table 3), second eye cataract surgery costs (Table 4), quality of life gain after cataract surgery (Table 5), waiting time of cataract surgery and costs (Table 6), and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs (Table 7). 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 (Table 8). RQ4. Which were the variables most commonly included in the economic evaluation? The most commonly included variables were QALY, DALY, and the incremental cost-effec- tiveness ratio (ICER). DALY has two components also included in some studies: years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) [29–31]. The willingness to pay (WTP) is generally used in CBA; however. it has been included in some studies as a method of valuing health outcomes in monetary units [32]. In terms of HRQoL, as it has been already reported in the literature, the most widely used were EQ-5D and HUI3 [12]. In CUA, health effects are measured by QALYs [13] or DALYs [33]. Additionally, the ICER has been used to summarize the results of the economic evaluations of the health interventions [34]. DISCUSSION This is the first systematic mapping review carried out on the economic evaluation on cataracts, considering studies of CEA and CUA. The current mapping review includes relevant studies over a period of more than 30 years (1988–2022), providing a global overview of the current state of knowledge in the field of cataracts, health, and costs. Fig. 2 Cumulative publications per year in economic evaluations of cataracts. The red line represents the exponential adjustment of the number of publications 794 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 A total of 56 articles were selected from the initial 984 non-duplicated studies from four bibliographical databases (PubMed, WOS, CRD, Embase). As shown in Fig. 2, the number of papers published has increased in the last decade, most notably in the last 4 years. Therefore, a great increase in interest in research on economic evaluations of cataracts has occurred recently. Comparison between surgical techniques in cataract surgery was one of the most commonly investigated areas. Conventional extracapsular surgery (ECCE), manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS), and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (LCS) were compared versus phacoemulsification (PCS). Asimakis et al. [35] in 1996 evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery comparing ECCE and PCS, and their results showed that ECCE generates slightly lower costs than PCS. Rizal et al. [36] showed similar results, with ECCE being more cost-effective compared to PCS [37]. With the introduction of new techniques such as MSICS, Jongsareejit et al. [38] reported the similar effectiveness of MSICS and PCS, but PCS had higher costs. Therefore, MSICS had better cost-effectiveness than PCS. Khan et al. [40] also compared the cost-effectiveness of PCS versus MSICS, concluding that MSICS provided comparable visual and QALY improvement, taking less time, and consequently being more cost-effective than PCS. Opposite results were published by Wulandari et al. [42] and Rochman et al. [30], concluding that PCS was more cost-effective than MSICS. Other authors compared the cost-effective- ness of LCS with conventional PCS. Abell et al. [39] showed that PCS was more cost-effective in spite of potential improvements in VA outcomes and complication rates. Schweitzer et al. [41] reported that despite its advanced Table 2 Comparison of surgical techniques versus costs Study Main outcome Economic technique Time horizon Variables evaluated Discount rate Asimakis et al. [35] ECCE versus PCS CEA 1 year Costs/VA – Rizal et al. [36] ECCE versus PCS CEA 20 years Elements of surgery costs 5% Rizal et al. [37] ECCE versus PCS CEA 18 months VFQ-14/ICER 5% Jongsareejit et al. [38] MSICS versus PCS CEA 1 year ICER/VA – Abell et al. [39] LCS versus PCS CEA and CUA 10 years VA/QALY/ICER – Khan et al. [40] PCS versus MSICS CEA 1 year VA/VF-14/QALY – Schweitzer et al. [41] LCS versus PCS CEA – QALY/ICER/VA – Wulandari et al. [42] MSICS versus PCS CEA – VF-25/QALY/ICER – Rochmah et al. [30] PCS versus SICS CEA – DALY/ICER/YLL/ YLD – CEA cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA cost–utility analysis, ECCE conventional extracapsular cataract extraction, PCS phacoemulsification, MSICS manual small incision cataract surgery, SICS small incision cataract surgery, LCS femtosecond laser assisted-cataract surgery, VA visual acuity, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year, DALY disability-adjusted life year, YLL years of life lost, YLD years lost due to disability Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 795 Table 3 Cataract surgery versus costs Study Main outcome Economic technique Time horizon Variables evaluated Discount rate Tuominen et al. [43] Economic changes in cataract surgery CEA 10 years VA/surgery costs 3% Marseille [44] Mortality rate of cataract surgery and costs CEA and CUA Lifetime DALY/surgery cost 3% Busbee et al. [45] Cost–utility of initial cataract surgery CUA – CEAC/WTP/QALY 3% Baltussen et al. [46] Population health effects, costs, and costeffectiveness of cataract surgery interventions CEA – HYL/DALY 3% Ra ¨sa ¨nen et al. [47] Cataract surgery versus costs CUA Lifetime HRQoL/QALY/VA 5% Lansingh et al. [48] Cataract surgery versus costs CEA and CUA 12 years CSAI/dollar/QALY/ QALY/DALY/utility gain/ICER 3% Sach et al. [49] Cost-effectiveness of first eye cataract surgery vs no surgery CEA Lifetime EuroQol EQ-5D/QALY/ ICER/WTP/CEAC 3.5% Brown et al. [50] Cost–utility of cataract surgery CEA 13 years QALY/ROI/VA 3% Griffiths et al. [51] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery and presbyopia CEA 5 years HRQoL/EQ-5D/VA/ QALY/DALY 3% Boyd et al. [52] Cataract surgery versus falls prevention CEA 1 year QALY/ICER/QALY gain/VA – Essue et al. [53] Medical and non-medical cost associated with cataract CEA – CHE/DALY 3% Kapse et al. [31] Cost pediatric cataract surgery CEA 20 years DALY/YLL/YLD – CEA cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA cost–utility analysis, VA visual acuity, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year, DALY disability-adjusted life year, YLL years of life lost,YLD years lost due to disability, CSAI Cataract Surgery Affordability Index, CEAC cost-effectiveness accessibility curve, ROI financial return on investment, HYL healthy years lived, WTP willingness to pay, CHE catastrophic health expenditure 796 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 technology, LCS was not cost-effective compared with PCS. LCS had higher costs and did not provide an additional benefit over PCS for patients or health systems. Removal of cataracts may be among the most cost-effective of all ophthalmological interventions, as the surgical procedure can be carried out in less than 5 min, being almost always successful, and providing increase in utility after surgery. Therefore, in low-income countries, cataract surgery programs should be given high priority consideration in the planning health services [44]. Although there are no standardized definitions for what is considered cost-effective, it has been suggested that interventions costing less than $20,000/QALY gain are highly cost-effective, whereas those costing more than $100,000/QALY are not cost-effec- tive [45,87]. Throughout the course of cataract surgery, different countries have evaluated its cost-ef- fectiveness compared with other surgical interventions. It has been proved that cataract surgery is more cost-effective than other ophthalmic and non-ophthalmic health interventions comparing cost/QALY gain of each intervention [44–46], being considerably cheaper in Europe and Canada compared with the USA [48]. Nevertheless, Ra ¨sa ¨nen et al. [47] obtained low results of the mean utility gain after cataract surgery. The majority of patients included in their study only reported minimal seeing problems in the surgical eye, which might have reduced the benefit of cataract surgery, and consequently would explain the small increase in HRQoL after the intervention. The cost–utility of cataract surgery varies substantially depending how the benefit is assessed and the duration of the assumed benefit. Results of CUA in the USA demonstrated that cataract surgery greatly improved quality of life and was highly cost-effective, decreasing its cost over the time, being 34.4% less expensive in 2012 than in 2000, and 85% less expensive than in 1985 [50]. Cataract surgery resulted in a cost-effective- ness intervention of restoring sight in different parts of the world, e.g., Zambia [46], Vietnam [53], New Zealand [66], or Japan [63]. According to accepted international benchmarks, cataract surgery and presbyopia correction can be considered highly cost-effective in Zambia. However, severe health system and human resource constraints make it difficult to scale up services [51]. Expedited cataract surgery appears very cost-effective in New Zealand, being considered itself very cost-effective, and its value appears largely driven by the falls prevention benefits [66]. According to the literature, cataract Table 4 Cataract surgery costs and second eye Study Main outcome Economic technique Time horizon Variables evaluated Discount rate Busbee et al. [54] Case cost–utility analysis of second eye cataract surgery CUA – VA/QALY/cost per QALY gained 3% Sach et al. [55] Second eye cataract surgery costs versus patients already operated on first eye CEA and CUA Lifetime QALY/EQ-D5/ ICER/CEAC/ WTP 3% Frampton et al. [56] First eye versus second eye CEA Lifetime QALY/ICER/WTP 3.5% Cooper et al. [57] First eye versus second eye CEA 25 years QALY/ICER 3.5% CEA cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA cost–utility analysis, VA visual acuity, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year, WTP willingness to pay Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 797 2. Marques AP, Ramke J, Cairns J, et al. Global economic productivity losses from vision impairment and blindness. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;35:100852. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECLINM.2021.100852. 3. Assi L, Rosman L, Chamseddine F, et al. Eye health and quality of life: an umbrella review protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037648. https://doi.org/10. 1136/BMJOPEN-2020-037648. 4. Atik A, Barton K, Azuara-Blanco A, Kerr NM. Health economic evaluation in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105:602–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bjophthalmol-2020-316880. 5. Grimes CE, Henry JA, Maraka J, Mkandawire NC, Cotton M. Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2014;38:252–63. 6. Javed Q. Cost-effectivness of surgical interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Int J Surg. 2017;47:S58. 7. Hahn U, Krummenauer F. Results and methodology of cost–utility evaluation of cataract surgery in developed countries: quality-adjusted life years and cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:839–47. 8. Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. 2010. Oxford: OUP; 1386. ISBN 9780199227280. 9. Gov.UK. Cost effectiveness analysis: health economic studies. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/costeffectiveness-analysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed 11 Nov 2022. 10. Gov.UK. Cost utility analysis: health economic studies. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost–utilityanalysis-health-economic-studies. Accessed 11 Nov 2022. 11. Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29(2):207–24. 12. Dixon P, Hollingworth W, Sparrow J. Mapping to quality of life and capability measures in cataract surgery patients: from Cat-PROM5 to EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and ICECAP-O using mixture modelling. MDM Policy Pract. 2020;5:2381468320915447. 13. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost–utility analyses. Value Heal. 2006;9: 213–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-4733.2006. 00116.X. 14. Pinto Prades JL, Sa ´nchez Martı ´nez FI. Me ´todos Para La Evaluacio ´n Econo ´mica de Nuevas Prestaciones. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2003. 15. Brown GC, Brown MM, Chaudhry I, Stein JD. Opportunities to reduce potential bias in ophthalmic cost–utility analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139:389–97. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamaophthalmol.2020.6591. 16. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:593–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021- 9681(87)90019-1. 17. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85: 327–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/BJO.85.3.327. 18. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Hollands H, Landy J. Quality of life and systemic comorbidities in patients with ophthalmic disease. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/BJO.86. 1.8. 19. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. 2016. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s13643-016-0204-x. 20. Hetrick SE, Parker AG, Callahan P, Purcell R. Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:1025–30. 21. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108. 22. NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD Database. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ ResultsPage.asp. Accessed 11 Sept 2021. 23. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE. The Guidelines Manual; 2012; ISBN 978-1- 4731-1906-2. 24. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Value-based medicine and ophthalmology: an appraisal of cost–utility analyses. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2004;102:177. 25. Plu ¨ddemann A, Aronson JK, Onakpoya I, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR. Redefining rapid reviews: a flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2018;23:201–3. https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmjebm-2018-110990. 26. Dominski FH, Lorenzetti Branco JH, Buonanno G, Stabile L, da Gameiro Silva M, Andrade A. Effects of 804 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 air pollution on health: a mapping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Environ Res. 2021;201: 111487. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ENVRES.2021.111487. 27. Ferna ´ndez-Sotos P, Torio I, Ferna ´ndez-Caballero A, et al. Social cognition remediation interventions: a systematic mapping review. PLoS ONE. 2018;14: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0218720. 28. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000100. 29. Taylor H, Pezzullo L, Keeffe J. The economic impact and cost of visual impairment in Australia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):272–5. 30. 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:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17166010 31. Kapse R, Agarwal S, Rishikeshi N, et al. Cost analysis of pediatric cataract surgery in a tertiary eye care hospital in Western India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:420. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1229_ 21. 32. Maxwell WA, Waycaster CR, D’Souza AO, Meissner BL, Hileman K. A United States cost-benefit comparison of an apodized, diffractive, presbyopia-cor- recting, multifocal intraocular lens and a conventional monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1855–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcrs.2008.07.024. 33. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Heal. 2009;12:S5–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x. 34. Paulden M. Calculating and interpreting ICERs and net benefit. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:785–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00914-6. 35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1442- 9071.1996.TB01602.X. 36. Rizal AM, Aljunid SM, Normalina M, 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 Malaysia. 2003;58: 380–6. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. Abell RG, Vote BJ. Cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:10–6. 40. 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://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.162600. 41. Schweitzer C, Brezin A, Cochener B, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT): a multicentre participant-masked randomised superiority and cost-ef- fectiveness trial. Lancet. 2020;395:212–24. 42. Wulandari A, Dahlui M, Wulandari RD, Rochmah TN. Cost effectiveness analysis between small incision cataract surgery and phacoemulsification. J Heal Transl Med. 2020;23:231–7. 43. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 3768.1988.tb04383.x. 44. Marseille E. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in a public health eye care programme in Nepal. Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74:319–24. 45. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:606–12. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00971-X. 46. 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. 47. Ra ¨sa ¨nen P, Krootila K, Sintonen H, et al. Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477- 7525-4-74. Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 805 48. Lansingh VC, Carter MJ, Martens M. Global costeffectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1670–8. 49. Sach TH, Foss AJE, Gregson RM, et al. Falls and health status in elderly women following first eye cataract surgery: an economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1675–9. 50. 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://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013. 04.030. 51. 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:// doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-6. 52. 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. 53. Essue BM, Jan S, Phuc HT, Dodson S, Armstrong K, Laba T-L. Who benefits most from extending financial protection for cataract surgery in Vietnam? An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of small incision surgery. Health Policy Plan. 2018;550000:399–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/ heapol/czz181. 54. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Costutility analysis of cataract surgery in the second eye. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2310–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00796-6. 55. Sach TH, Foss AJE, Gregson RM, 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://doi.org/ 10.1038/eye.2009.112. 56. Frampton G, Harris P, Cooper K, 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://doi.org/10.3310/hta18680. 57. Cooper K, Shepherd J, Frampton G, Harris P, Lotery A. The cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery in the UK. Age Ageing. 2015;44:1026–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv126. 58. Kobelt G, Lundstro ¨m M, Stenevi U. Cost-effective- ness of cataract surgery: method to assess cost-ef- fectiveness using registry data. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1742–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0886-3350(02)01220-8. 59. Naeim A, Keeler EB, Gutierrez PR, Wilson MR, Reuben D, Mangione CM. Is cataract surgery costeffective among older patients with a low predicted probability for improvement in reported visual functioning? Med Care. 2006;44:982–9. https://doi. org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000228216.18270.3e. 60. 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://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol. 2009.113. 61. Hiratsuka Y. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:333–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10384-011-0041-3/ TABLES/9. 62. Weale M. A cost-benefit analysis of cataract surgery based on the English longitudinal survey of ageing. J Health Econ. 2011;30:730–9. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.008. 63. 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. 64. Moore DB, Slabaugh MA. Surgical outcomes and cost basis for resident-performed cataract surgery in an uninsured patient population. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:891. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamaophthalmol.2013.202. 65. 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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.02.006. 66. 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 highincome country. Inj Prev. 2020;26:302–9. https:// doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043184. 67. Hopkins RB, Tarride J-E, Bowen J, et al. Cost-effec- tiveness of reducing wait times for cataract surgery in Ontario. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;43:213–7. https://doi.org/10.3129/i08-002. 68. Lundstro ¨m 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 3768.2008.01343.x. 69. Malvankar-Mehta MS, Filek R, Iqbal M, et al. Immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery: a cost-effective procedure. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48:482–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2013. 05.004. 806 Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 70. Cernat A, Jamieson M, Kavelaars R, et al. Immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in children: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bjophthalmol-2020-316507. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. Meltzer ME, Congdon N, Kymes SM, et al. Cost and expected visual effect of interventions to improve follow-up after cataract surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:85. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamaophthalmol.2016.4735. 74. Leung EH, Gibbons A, Koch DD. Cost-effectiveness of preoperative oct in cataract evaluation for multifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2020;127: 859–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.01. 049. 75. Orme ME, Paine AC, Teale CW, Kennedy LM. Costeffectiveness of the AMOArray multifocal intraocular lens in cataract surgery. J Refract Surg. 2002;18: 162–8. 76. Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR in cataract surgery in four European countries. BMC Ophthalmol. 2008;8:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-8-12. 77. 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://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.151. 78. 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://doi.org/10.1016/j. clinthera.2014.07.009. 79. Hu JQ, Sarkar R, Murphy J, Afshari NA. Cost-effec- tiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses compared to monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59:208–305. 80. Smith AF, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G, et al. Cost-effec- tiveness analysis of PMMA, silicone, or acrylic intraocular lenses in cataract surgery in four European countries. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:343–51. 81. Pineda R, Denevich S, Lee WC, Waycaster C, Pashos CL. Economic evaluation of toric intraocular lens: a short- and long-term decision analytic model. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:834–40. https://doi.org/10. 1001/archophthalmol.2010.127. 82. 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://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14108. 83. Simons RWP, Visser N, van den Biggelaar FJHM, 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. 84. Jain S, Chauhan A, Rajshekar K, 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0240036. 85. Ranno S, Rabbiolo GM, Lucentini S, et al. Anglesupported intraocular lens versus scleral-sutured posterior chamber intraocular lens in post-cataract surgery aphakic patients: two-year follow-up costeffectiveness analysis. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42: 871–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02068- 6. 86. 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 Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;49:878–9. 87. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugweli PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146(4):473–81. 88. Diane C. What is a ‘‘mapping study?’’ J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104:76–8. https://doi.org/10.3163/ 1536-5050.104.1.013. Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:789–807 807