Economic Analysis of the Ex-PRESS Miniature Glaucoma Device Versus Trabeculectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ex-PRESS shunt is an alternative filtration procedure to trabeculectomy. This study aimed to compare the 1-year cost differences between the 2 operations. METHODS: Subjects were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing Ex-PRESS to trabeculectomy. Surgical cost difference and 1-year postoperative costs (follow-up visits, additional procedures, and medications) were determined and compared. The 95% confidence interval of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated using bootstrap method. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects with 1-year follow-up were included. Success rate was not significantly different for Ex-PRESS (65%) versus trabeculectomy (55%, P=0.49). Ex-PRESS had a net surgical cost of $956 greater than trabeculectomy. There was no significant difference in the overall postoperative cost [median (interquartile range); $485 (337, 822) vs. $609 (387, 820), P=0.78], cost of follow-up visits [$303 (275, 358) vs. $317 (275, 385), P=0.75], additional procedures [$182 (0, 365) vs. $182 (0, 365), P=0.69], or glaucoma medication [$0 (0, 68) vs. $0 (0, 90), P=0.8] for Ex-PRESS versus trabeculectomy, respectively. The overall 1-year cost was significantly greater for Ex-PRESS and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $9625 (95% confidence interval, $2435-548,084). CONCLUSIONS: Ex-PRESS is associated with greater surgical cost compared with trabeculectomy. This needs to be considered in conjunction with efficacy and safety if Ex-PRESS is to supersede trabeculectomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".