Files in this item
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
Item metadata
dc.contributor.author | Ternent, Laura | |
dc.contributor.author | Vale, Luke | |
dc.contributor.author | Boachie, Charles | |
dc.contributor.author | Burr, Jennifer M. | |
dc.contributor.author | Lois, Noemi | |
dc.contributor.author | Full-Thickness Macular Hole | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-09-01T00:26:57Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-09-01T00:26:57Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-03 | |
dc.identifier.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 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0007-1161 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE: 22155543 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE UUID: f20fce9b-1d1d-4abf-8bf6-0ad88734909f | |
dc.identifier.other | WOS: 000300604900028 | |
dc.identifier.other | Scopus: 84857116581 | |
dc.identifier.other | ORCID: /0000-0002-9478-738X/work/60196210 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10023/3059 | |
dc.description | This work is supported by funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates | en |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.format.extent | 6 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | British Journal of Ophthalmology | en |
dc.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 | en |
dc.subject | RE Ophthalmology | en |
dc.subject | SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being | en |
dc.subject.lcc | RE | en |
dc.title | 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 | en |
dc.type | Journal article | en |
dc.description.version | Postprint | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. School of Medicine | en |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300402 | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | en |
dc.date.embargoedUntil | 2012-09-01 |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.