Second-eye cataract surgery in elderly women: A cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial

Eye

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 276-283

  Sach, T H ^a   Foss, A J E ^b   Gregson, R M ^b   Zaman, A ^b   Osborn, F ^b   Masud, T ^c   Harwood, R H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^c NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cataract surgery; Cost utility; Economic evaluation; Elderly

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CATARACT EXTRACTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GERIATRIC PATIENT; GERIATRIC SURGERY; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL VISUAL DYSFUNCTION; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; REPEAT PROCEDURE; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EID: 77049096053     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.112     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Masud T, Morris RO. Epidemiology of falls. Age Ageing 2001; 30(Suppl 4): 3-7.
2. Harwood RH, Foss AJ, Osborn F, , Gregson RM, Zaman A, Masud T. Falls and health status in elderly women following first eye cataract surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 53-59.
3. Sach TH, Foss AJ, Gregson RM, Zaman A, Osborn F, Masud T 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(12): 1675-1679.
4. Asbell PA, Dualan I, Mindel J, Brocks D, Ahmad M, Epstein S. Age-related cataract. Lancet 2005; 365: 599-609.
5. Desai P, Reidy A, Minassian DC. Profile of patients presenting for cataract surgery in the UK: national data collection. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83(8): 893-896.
6. Leinonen J, Laatikainen L. Changes in visual acuity of patients undergoing cataract surgery during the last two decades. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80(5): 506-511.
7. Black N, Browne J, van der Meulen J, Jamieson L, Copley L, Lewsey J. Is there overutilisation of cataract surgery in England? Br J Opthalmol 2009; 93: 13-17.
8. Lansingh VC, CarterMJ,MartensM. Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2007; 114(9): 1670-1678.
9. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the second eye. Ophthalmology 2003; 110(12): 2310-2317.
10. Foss AJ, Harwood RH, Osborn F, Gregson RM, Zaman A, Masud T. Falls and health status in elderly women following second eye cataract surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2006; 35: 66-71.
11. Curtis L, Netten A Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2004. Accessed on-line on 14th March 2006 at http:// www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc2004/uc2004.pdf.
12. National Statistics. New Earnings Survey 2003. Accessed on-line on 21st February 2007 at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme
13. Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2003. Accessed online 13th October 2005 athttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAnd Guidance/DH-4070195.
14. Sach TH, Whynes DK. Measuring indirect costs: is there a problem? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(3): 135-139.
15. NICE. Guide to the Methods of technology appraisal, June 2008. Accessed on-line on 21st July 2008 at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/ TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf.
16. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
17. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for the EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey (Discussion Paper 138). University of York: Centre for Health Economics1995. Accessed on-line on 21st February 2008 at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/DP138.pdf.
18. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30.
19. Government Actuary Department Interim life tables. Access on line on 16th November 2006 at: http:// www.gad.gov.uk/Demography%20Data/Life%20Tables/ Interim-life-tables.html.
20. Barton GR, Fortnum HM, Stacey PC, Summerfield Q. Hearing-impaired children in the UK, IV: Cost-effectiveness of paediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 575-588.
21. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 336-360.
22. HM Treasury. Green Book. Appraisal and evaluation in central government, 2007. http://www.hm-treasury.gov. uk/data-greenbook-index.htm (accessed 30th July 2008).
23. Barton GR, Briggs AH, Fenwick EA. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health 2008; 11: 886-897.
24. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, 2005.
25. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, Chen E, Linden C, Alm A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84: 363-371.
26. Browne J, Jamiesin L, Lewsey J, Van der Meulen J, Black N, Cairns J et al. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Elective Surgery: Report to the Department of Health. 2007. Accessed on-line on 8th April 2009: http://www/lshtm.ac.uk/hsru/research/ PROMs-Report-12-Dec-07.pdf.
27. Kind P. Size matters. EQ-5D in transition. Med Care 2007; 45: 809-811.
28. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 2007; 45: 259-263.
29. Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) For the NHS in England 2009/10. 8th December 2008.
30. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4016-4023.
31. Smith DH, Johnson ES, Russell A, Hazlehurst B, Muraki C, Nichols GA et al. Lower visual acuity predicts worse utility values among patients with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 1277-1284.
32. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Gavriel S, Rousculp MD, Boyet KS, Ahmed A. Health utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2008; 25: 618-624.
33. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. How consistent are health utility values? Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 1031-1042.
34. van Nipen RMA, de Boer MR, Hoeijmakers JGJ, Ringens PJ, van Rens GHMB. Co-morbidity and visual acuity are risk factors for health-related quality of life decline: five-month follow-up EQ-5D data of visually impaired older patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 18.
35. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 1-7.
36. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis A, Summerfield Q. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3, and SF-6D. Applied Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: 103-105.
37. Leske MC, Chylack Jr LT, He Q, Wu SY, Schoenfeld E, Friend J et al. Incidence and progression of cortical and posterior subcapsular opacities: the Longitudinal Study of Cataract. The LSC Group. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 1987-1993.
38. LeskeMC,Wu SY, Nemesure B, Li X, Hennis A, Connell AM. Incidence and progression of lens opacities in the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1267-1273.
39. Magno BV, Datiles MB, Lasa MS. Progression of lens opacities in cataract patients after one year. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1995; 73: 45-49.