Real-world service costs for neovascular-AMD clinics in the United Kingdom: structured literature review and scenario analysis

References

• Buchan J, Norman P, Shickle D, et al. Failing to plan and planning to fail. Can we predict the future growth of demand on UK eye care services. Eye. 2019;33(7):1029–1031. doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0383-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth W, Jones T, Reeves BC, et al. A longitudinal study to assess the frequency and cost of antivascular endothelial therapy, and inequalities in access, in England between 2005 and 2015. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e018289. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laali S. 1205 Clinical audit demonstrating an increase in referrals to the ophthalmology AMD clinic at University Hospital Southampton. Br J Surg. 2021;108(Supplement_6):znab259.133. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab259.133.
   Google Scholar
• Cruess AF, Zlateva G, Xu X, et al. Economic burden of bilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration: multi-country observational study. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(1):57–73. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826010-00006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzullo L, Streatfeild J, Simkiss P, et al. The economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the UK adult population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2836-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Commissioning Guidance: age Related Macular Degeneration Services. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• van Asten F, Michels CTJ, Hoyng CB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration—a cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. PLOS One. 2018;13(5):e0197670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel JJ, Mendes MAS, Bounthavong M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a Markov model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):247–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01546.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshout M, van der Reis MI, Webers CAB, et al. The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(12):1911–1920. doi: 10.1007/s00417-014-2641-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopra R, Preston G, Keenan TDL, et al. Intravitreal injections: past trends and future projections within a UK tertiary hospital. Eye. 2022;36(7):1373–1378. doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01646-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. [TA155]. Published August 27, 2008. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta155.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Age-related macular degeneration. NICE guideline [NG82]. Published January 23, 2018. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng82.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Aflibercept solution for injection for treating wet age‑related macular degeneration. [TA294]. Published July 24, 2013. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta294/chapter/4-Consideration-of-the-evidence.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Brolucizumab for treating wet age-related macular degeneration. [TA672]. Published February 3, 2021. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta672.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Faricimab for treating wet age-related macular degeneration. Technology appraisal guidance [TA800]. Published June 29, 2022. Committee papers. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta800/evidence/committee-papers-pdf-11127512989.
   Google Scholar
• National Health Service England. Operational note: Updated commissioning recommendations for medical retinal vascular medicines following the national procurement for ranibizumab biosimilars. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/operational-note-updated-commissioning-recommendations-for-medical-retinal-vascular-medicines-following-the-national-procurement-for-ranibizumab-biosimilars/.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1419–1431. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432–1444. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537–2548. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugel PU, Koh A, Ogura Y, et al. HAWK and HARRIER: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked trials of brolucizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(1):72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.04.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heier JS, Khanani AM, Quezada Ruiz C, et al. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (TENAYA and Lucerne): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet. 2022;399(10326):729–740. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00010-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 2021. Summary of product characteristics [Eyelea]. Accessed August 25, 2023. Available from: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/d24a783ac377311dea10a8fc983667447044d61a.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 2021. Summary of product characteristics [Beovu]. Accessed August 25, 2023. Available from: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/856fe193cab742573bd558275ed4a05dfa42c0aa.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 2022. Summary of product characteristics [Vabysmo]. Accessed August 25, 2023. Available from: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/cbe8dd3b2ac286047361d5ca94f2eba02db79878.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 2021. Summary of product characteristics [Lucentis]. Accessed August 25, 2023. Available from: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/8f9f82d6ec696188fc316bdef8ef2f7243a279f4.
   Google Scholar
• Lanzetta P, Loewenstein A,. Fundamental principles of an anti-VEGF treatment regimen: optimal application of intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy of macular diseases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255(7):1259–1273. doi: 10.1007/s00417-017-3647-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adrean S. High-dose aflibercept with increased dosing intervals as a new standard of care for DMO and nAMD. Published online: may 11th 2023. touchREVIEWS in Ophthalmology. 2023;17(1):8–9. doi: 10.17925/USOR.2023.17.1.8.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravarthy U, Armendariz BG, Fauser S. 15 Years of anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD: success or failure or something in between? Eye . 2022;36(12):2232–2233. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02153-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta H, Kim LN, Mathis T, et al. Trends in real-world neovascular AMD treatment outcomes in the UK. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3331–3342. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S275977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gale R, Cox O, Keenan C, et al. Health technology assessment of new retinal treatments; the need to capture healthcare capacity issues. Eye (Lond). 2022;36(12):2236–2238. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02149-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis A, Baldwin A, Hingorani M, et al. A review of 145 234 ophthalmic patient episodes lost to follow-up. Eye. 2017;31(3):422–429. doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foot B, MacEwen C. Surveillance of sight loss due to delay in ophthalmic treatment or review: frequency, cause and outcome. Eye . 2017;31(5):771–775. doi: 10.1038/eye.2017.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandhyala R. Concordance between the schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life – direct weighting (SEIQoL-DW) and the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) measures of quality of life outcomes in adults with x-linked hypophosphatemia. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02250-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damy T, Conceição I, García-Pavía P, et al. A simple core dataset and disease severity score for hereditary transthyretin (ATTRv) amyloidosis. Amyloid. 2021;28(3):189–198. doi: 10.1080/13506129.2021.1931099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman S, de-Madaria E, Singh VK, et al. A simple core dataset for triglyceride-induced acute pancreatitis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;39(1):37–46. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2144054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandhyala R. A novel method for observing proportional group awareness and consensus of items arising from list-generating questioning. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(5):883–893. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1734920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandhyala R. Delphi, non-RAND modified delphi, RAND/UCLA appropriateness method and a novel group awareness and consensus methodology for consensus measurement: a systematic literature review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(11):1873–1887. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1816946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandhyala R. PAC-19QoL: design, validation and implementation of the post-acute (long) COVID-19 quality of life (PAC-19QoL) instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01862-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandhyala R. Neutral theory: applicability and neutrality of clinical study endpoints where a disease-specific instrument is available. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01947-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann KE, Matchar DB, Chang S. Chapter 6: assessing applicability of medical test studies in systematic reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(Suppl 1):S39–S46. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1961-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amoaku W, Blakeney S, Freeman M, et al. Action on AMD. Optimising patient management: act now to ensure current and continual delivery of best possible patient care. Eye 2012;26(Suppl 1):S2–S21. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patel PJ, Villavicencio P, Hanumunthadu D. Systematic review of neovascular age-related macular degeneration disease activity criteria use to shorten, maintain or extend treatment intervals with anti-VEGF in clinical trials: implications for clinical practice. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(5):2323–2346. Joint Formulary Committee. doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00768-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. Updated September 2018. Available from: https://vnras.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/BNF-76.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hernandez R, Kennedy C, Banister K, et al. Early detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an economic evaluation based on data from the EDNA study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(12):1754–1761. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowatt G, Hernández R, Castillo M, et al. Optical coherence tomography for the diagnosis, monitoring, and guiding of treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(69):1–254. doi: 10.3310/hta18690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve R, Guerriero C, Walker J, et al. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy cohort study: report 3: cost effectiveness and lessons for future evaluations. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2471–2477.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelly A, Taylor N, Fasser C, et al. Patient preferences in the management of wet age-related macular degeneration: a conjoint analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39(10):4808–4820. doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02248-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gohil R, Crosby-Nwaobi R, Forbes A, et al. Caregiver burden in patients receiving ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age related macular degeneration. PLOS One. 2015;10(6):e0129361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor, Seán R, Treanor, Charlene, Ward, Elizabeth, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and ophthalmic care: a qualitative study of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(15):9488. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoaku W, Bailey C, Downey L, et al. Providing a safe and effective intravitreal treatment service: strategies for service delivery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:1315–1328. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S233061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. National Ophthalmology Database Audit: The First Report of Age-related Macular Degeneration Audit (AMD). 2023. Available from: https://nodaudit.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/NOD%20AMD%20Audit%20Full%20Annual%20Report%202023_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Macular Society. Treatments. 2022. Accessed September 1, 2023. Available from: https://www.macularsociety.org/diagnosis-treatment/treatments/.
   Google Scholar
• Yanagi Y, Takahashi K, Iida T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ranibizumab biosimilar for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Japan. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(4):2005–2021. doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00715-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisbrod BA, Test MA, Stein LI. Alternative to mental hospital treatment: II. Economic benefit-cost analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980;37(4):400–405., cited in Beecham and Knapp. Costing psychiatric interventions. In Thornicroft G. (Ed). Measuring Mental Health Needs (2nd edition). 2001. Gaskell, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780170042004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, et al. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(1):111–124. doi: 10.1017/S0266462300161100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes DA, Tilson L, Drummond M. Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(8):635–643. doi: 10.2165/10899570-000000000-00000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, et al. Perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974–2018. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1135–1145. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Iglesias CP, Cooper NJ. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):146–150. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Mochón L, Špacírová Z, Espín J. Costing methodologies in european economic evaluation guidelines: commonalities and divergences. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(6):979–991. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01414-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner C, Ingleton C, Ryan T, et al. What cost components are relevant for economic evaluations of palliative care, and what approaches are used to measure these costs? A systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017;31(4):323–337. doi: 10.1177/0269216316670287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner C, Ryan T, Gott M. What is the cost of palliative care in the UK? A systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2018;8(3):250–257. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Identifying and reviewing evidence to inform the conceptualisation and population of cost-effectiveness models: report by the Decision Support Unit. 2011. Available at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/media/34222/download?attachment.
   Google Scholar
• Urbich M, Globe G, Pantiri K, et al. A systematic review of medical costs associated with heart failure in the USA (2014–2020). Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(11):1219–1236. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00952-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshout M, Webers CAB, van der Reis MI, et al. A systematic review on the quality, validity and usefulness of current cost-effectiveness studies for treatments of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(8):770–778. doi: 10.1111/aos.13824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Brown MM, Chaudhry I, et al. Opportunities to reduce potential bias in ophthalmic cost-utility analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139(4):389–397. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.6591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–842. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin M, Lomas J, Walker S, et al. An educational review about using cost data for the purpose of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(5):631–643. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00771-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn JC, Brookes ST, Ridyard C, et al. Core items for a standardized resource use measure: expert delphi consensus survey. Value Health. 2018;21(6):640–649. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langley P. Facilitating bias in cost-effectiveness analysis: CHEERS 2022 and the creation of assumption-driven imaginary value claims in health technology assessment. F1000Res. 2022;11:993. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.123709.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mandrik O (, Severens JL(, Bardach A, et al. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews with costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes: an ISPOR good practices task force report. Value Health. 2021;24(4):463–472. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;19(8):1039–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003.
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/S0266462321001732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I, et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2019;22(3):267–275. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(25):iii. iii-iv, ix-xii, doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(5):830–836. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung R, Yu B, Iordanous Y, et al. The prevalence of occupational burnout among ophthalmologists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Rep. 2021;124(5):2139–2154. doi: 10.1177/0033294120954135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. How does burnout affect physician productivity? A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:325. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e015141. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• More P, Almuhtaseb H, Smith D, et al. Socio-economic status and outcomes for patients with age-related macular degeneration. Eye (Lond). 2019;33(8):1224–1231. doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0393-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finger RP, Wickremasinghe SS, Baird PN, et al. Predictors of anti-VEGF treatment response in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(1):1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Response from The Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) to the HEE Strategic Framework Call for Evidence. 2021b. Available at: https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RCOphth-response-to-HEE-Strategic-Framework-Call-for-Evidence-6-Sept-final-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Facing workforce shortages and backlogs in the aftermath or COVID-19: The 2022 census of the ophthalmology consultant, trainee and SAS workforce. Census Report. Available at: https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2022-Ophthalmology-census-Facing-workforce-shortages-and-backlogs-in-the-aftermath-of-COVID-19.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham L, Hay G, Hamilton R, et al. The impact of COVID policies on acute ophthalmology services—experiences from Moorfields eye hospital NHS foundation trust. Eye. 2020;34(7):1189–1192. doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0957-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(31):1–103, iii. iii-iv, doi: 10.3310/hta8490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar