Purpose: Most published systematic reviews have focused on the use of virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR) technology in ophthalmology as it relates to surgical training. To date, this is the first review that investigates the current state of VR/AR technology applied more broadly to the entire field of ophthalmology. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched systematically from January 2014 through December 1, 2020. Studies that discussed VR and/or AR as it relates to the field of ophthalmology and provided information on the technology used were considered. Abstracts, non–peer-reviewed literature, review articles, studies that reported only qualitative data, and studies without English translations were excluded. Results: A total of 77 studies were included in this review. Of these, 28 evaluated the use of VR/AR in ophthalmic surgical training/assessment and guidance, 7 in clinical training, 23 in diagnosis/screening, and 19 in treatment/therapy. 15 studies used AR, 61 used VR, and 1 used both. Most studies focused on the validity and usability of novel technologies. Conclusions: Ophthalmology is a field of medicine that is well suited for the use of VR/AR. However, further longitudinal studies examining the practical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of such novel technologies, the cost-effectiveness, and medical/legal considerations are still needed. We believe that time will indeed foster further technological advances and lead to widespread use of VR/AR in routine ophthalmic practice.

No abstract

Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) quantify and compare both costs and measures of efficacy for different interventions. As the costs of glaucoma management to patients, payers, and physicians are increasing, we seek to investigate the role of CEAs in the field of glaucoma and how such studies impact clinical management. Methods: We adhered to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” guidelines for our systematic review structure. Eligible studies included any full-text articles that investigated cost-effectiveness or cost-utility as it relates to the field of open angle glaucoma management in the United States. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the validated Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. Results: Eighteen studies were included in the review. Dates of publication ranged from 1983 to 2021. Most of the studies were published in the 2000s and performed CEAs in the domains of treatment/therapy, screening, and adherence for patients with primary angle open glaucoma. Of the 18 articles included, 14 focused on treatment, 2 on screening, and 2 on adherence. Most of these studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of different topical medical therapies, whereas only a few studies explored laser procedures, surgical interventions, or minimally invasive procedures. Economic models using decision analysis incorporating state-transition Markov cycles or Montecarlo simulations were widely used, however, the methodology among studies was variable, with a wide spectrum of inputs, measures of outcomes, and time horizons used. Conclusion: Overall, we found that cost-effectiveness research in glaucoma in the United States remains relatively unstructured, resulting in unclear and conflicting implications for clinical management.