St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for patients with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : results from a randomised controlled trial

View/Open
CLEAN_COPYTernent_Health_BJO_REVISION_06072011.doc (141Kb)
Date
03/2012
Author
Ternent, Laura
Vale, Luke
Boachie, Charles
Burr, Jennifer M.
Lois, Noemi
Full-Thickness Macular Hole
Keywords
RE Ophthalmology
Metadata
Show full item record
Altmetrics Handle Statistics
Altmetrics DOI Statistics
Abstract
Aim To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is cost-effective compared with no peeling for patients with an idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness macular hole. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. 141 participants were randomly allocated to receive macular-hole surgery, with either ILM peeling or no peeling. Health-service resource use, costs and quality of life were calculated for each participant. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated at 6 months. Results At 6 months, the total costs were on average higher (424 pound, 95% CI -182 to 1045) in the No Peel arm, primarily owing to the higher reoperation rate in the No Peel arm. The mean additional QALYs from ILM peel at 6 months were 0.002 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.013), adjusting for baseline EQ-5D and other minimisation factors. A mean incremental cost per QALY was not computed, as Peeling was on average less costly and slightly more effective. A stochastic analysis suggested that there was more than a 90% probability that Peeling would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 pound 000 per QALY. Conclusion Although there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in either costs or QALYs between macular hole surgery with or without ILM peeling, the balance of probabilities is that ILM Peeling is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of macular holes. Further long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings.
Citation
Ternent , L , Vale , L , Boachie , C , Burr , J M , Lois , N & Full-Thickness Macular Hole 2012 , ' Cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for patients with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : results from a randomised controlled trial ' , British Journal of Ophthalmology , vol. 96 , no. 3 , pp. 438-443 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300402
Publication
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Status
Peer reviewed
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300402
ISSN
0007-1161
Type
Journal article
Rights
This is the author's version of an article published in British Journal of Ophthalmology. The published version is available from http://bjo.bmj.com/content/96/3/438
Description
This work is supported by funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3059

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter