RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To identify the most sensitive visual performance metric for evaluating the pupil-dependency of a multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) and to determine the pupil measurement method most correlated with such metric. METHODS: Twenty-seven right eyes implanted with a MIOL were included in the analysis. Three pupil size measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 1 month after surgery with the Keratograph 5M system: photopic (PP), mesopic (MP), and the average from both (AP). Pupil was also measured with a rule (RP) under the same light conditions of postoperative visual performance measurements that included, corrected visual acuities (VA) at three distances (far, 67 cm and 40 cm), visual acuity (VADC) and contrast sensitivity defocus curves for optotype sizes of 0.3 logMAR (CSDC3) and 0.7 logMAR (CSDC7). Differences in visual performance were also analyzed for eyes with RP > 3 mm (Group A) and RP ⩽ 3 mm (Group B). RESULTS: PP diameter decreased after surgery by 16% (p = 0.001), whereas MP (p = 0.013) and AP (p = 0.008) decreased by 10%. The best agreement with RP was obtained for AP. Group B showed a trend to better performance than Group A for all the included metrics (p > 0.05). From the three types of defocus curves, CSDC3 obtained generally highest statistical power for testing differences between groups. The strongest statistically significant correlations between pupil size and CSDC3 were obtained for RP and AP. CONCLUSION: The CSDC3 was the most sensitive metric to detect MIOL pupil-dependency. PR and AP were more correlated with CSDC3 than PP and MP.
