↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Treatment costs of cystoid macular edema among patients following cataract surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Treatment costs of cystoid macular edema among patients following cataract surgery
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s98892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordana K Schmier, David W Covert, Carolyn K Hulme-Lowe, Anmol Mullins, Emmanuel M Mahlis

Abstract

The current costs of treating cystoid macular edema (CME), a complication that can follow cataract surgery, are largely unknown. This analysis estimates the treatment costs for CME based on the recently released US Medicare data. Nationally representative database. Retrospective analysis of the 2011 through 2013 Medicare 5% Beneficiary Encrypted Files. Beneficiaries who underwent cataract surgery were identified and stratified by diagnosis of CME (cases) or no diagnosis of CME (controls) within 6 months following surgery. Claims and reimbursements for ophthalmic care were identified. Subgroup analyses explored the rates of CME in beneficiaries based on the presence of selected comorbidities and by the type of procedure (standard vs complex). Total Medicare and ophthalmic costs for cases and controls are presented. The analysis explored the effect of considering diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) as exclusion criteria. Of 78,949 beneficiaries with cataract surgery, 2.54% (n=2,003) were diagnosed with CME. One-third of beneficiaries had one or more conditions affecting retinal health (including diabetes), 4.5% of whom developed CME. The rate of CME, at 22.5%, was much higher for those patients with preoperative DME or ME. Ophthalmic charges were almost twice as high for cases compared with controls (US$10,410 vs $5,950); payments averaged 85% higher ($2,720 vs $1,470) (both P<0.0001). Substantial costs can be associated with CME; beneficiaries whose retinas are already compromised before cataract surgery face higher risk. Cost savings could be realized with the use of therapies that reduce the risk of developing CME. Future analyses could identify whether and to what extent comorbidities influence costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,575,383
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#174
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,760
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#6
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.