Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of Argus II in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the Argus II in treatment of the retinitis pigmentosa (RP) patients. METHODS: PubMed) were searched using combinations of the keywords of Argus, safety, effectiveness, bionic eye, retinal prosthesis, and RP through March 2018. The retrieved records were screened and then assessed for eligibility. RESULTS: Totally 926 records were retrieved from the searched databases and finally 12 studies included. The RP patients showed improvements in visual function after receiving the prosthesis, compared to the time before the prosthesis or the time it was off. This was measured by square localization, direction of motion, and grating visual acuity tests. No major adverse effect was reported for the Argus II prosthesis itself and/or the surgery to implement it, but the most frequently reported items were hypotony, and conjunctival dehiscence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to be €14603 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in UK and $207 616 per QALY in Canada. CONCLUSION: The available evidence shows that the Argus II prosthesis in RP patients is effective in improvement of their visual function. Some minor adverse effects are reported for the prosthesis. The cost-effectiveness studies show that the technology is cost-effective only at high levels of willingness-to-pay.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".