Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Quantity and Quality of Health Economic Literature in Blinding Childhood Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Evidence on the socioeconomic burden associated with childhood visual impairment, severe visual impairment and blindness (VI/SVI/BL) is needed to inform economic evaluations of existing and emerging interventions aimed at protecting or improving vision. This study aimed to evaluate the quantity and quality of literature on resource use and/or costs associated with childhood VI/SVI/BL disorders.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science (Ovid), the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database and grey literature were searched in November 2020. The PubMed search was rerun in February 2022. Original articles reporting unique estimates of resource use or cost data on conditions resulting in bilateral VI/SVI/BL were eligible for data extraction. Quality assessment (QA) was undertaken using the Drummond checklist adapted for cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

Results

We identified 31 eligible articles, 27 from the peer-reviewed literature and four from the grey literature. Two reported on resource use, and 29 reported on costs. Cerebral visual impairment and optic nerve disorders were not examined in any included studies, whereas retinopathy of prematurity was the most frequently examined condition. The quality of studies varied, with economic evaluations having higher mean QA scores (82%) compared to COI studies (77%). Deficiencies in reporting were seen, particularly in the clinical definitions of conditions in economic evaluations and a lack of discounting and sensitivity analyses in COI studies.

Conclusions

There is sparse literature on resource use or costs associated with childhood visual impairment disorders. The first step in addressing this important evidence gap is to ensure core visual impairment outcomes are measured in future randomised control trials of interventions as well as cohort studies and are reported as a discrete health outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

All articles and grey literature can be found using the respective search strategies in supplementary file 1. All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper. Quality assessment scores for individual studies are available from the corresponding author on request.

References

  1. Teoh LJ, Solebo AL, Rahi JS, Morton C, Allen L, McPhee D, et al. Visual impairment, severe visual impairment, and blindness in children in Britain (BCVIS2): a national observational study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health [Internet]. 2021;5:190–200.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36). 2022.

  3. Burton MJ, Ramke J, Marques AP, Bourne RRA, Congdon N, Jones I, et al. The Lancet Global Health Commission on global eye health: vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health [Internet]. 2021;9:e489-551.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cost effectiveness of eye health treatments—The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness [Internet]. https://www.iapb.org/learn/vision-atlas/solutions/cost-effectiveness/. Accessed 15 Dec 2021.

  5. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Revista Espanola de Nutricion Humana y Dietetica [Internet]. 2016;20:148–60. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:2700.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boluyt N, Tjosvold L, Lefebvre C, Klassen TP, Offringa M. Usefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:111–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Veritas Health Innovation M. Covidence systematic review software [Internet]. www.covidence.org. Accessed 29 May 2020.

  9. World Health Organization. ICD-10 : international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems : tenth revision, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. [Internet]. 2004. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42980. Accessed 29 May 2020.

  10. Molinier L, Bauvin E, Combescure C, Castelli C, Rebillard X, Soulié M, et al. Methodological considerations in cost of prostate cancer studies: a systematic review. Value Health. 2008;11:878–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Figure 15.5.a: Drummond checklist [Internet]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_15/figure_15_5_a_drummond_checklist_drummond_1996.htm. Accessed 29 May 2020.

  12. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ [Internet]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Prices-Inflation (CPI)—OECD Data [Internet]. https://data.oecd.org/price/inflation-cpi.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.

  14. Conversion rates—Purchasing power parities (PPP)—OECD Data [Internet]. https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.

  15. Honeycutt AA, Grosse SD, Dunlap LJ, Schendel DE, Chen H, Brann E, et al. Economic costs of mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment. Research in Social Science and Disability. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2003. p. 207–28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Socioeconomic impact of low vision and blindness from paediatric eye disease in Australia Save Sight Institute The University of Sydney. 2016. Report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics [Internet]. https://www.deloitte.com/au/en/services/economics/analysis/socioeconomic-impact-low-vision-blindness-paediatric-eye-disease-australia.html

  17. Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The costs of blindness: an analysis of the costs of visual impairment and blindness in the United Kingdom [Internet]. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031119/text/31119w67.htm. Accessed 11 November 2020.

  18. Wittenborn J, Rein D. Cost of vision problems: the Economic Burden of Vision Loss and Eye Disorders in the United States. NORC. University of Chicago; 2013.

  19. Zin AA, Magluta C, Pinto MF, Entringer AP, Mendes-Gomes MA, Moreira ME, et al. Retinopathy of prematurity screening and treatment cost in Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Publica [Internet]. 2014;36:37–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stillwaggon E, Carrier CS, Sautter M, McLeod R. Maternal serologic screening to prevent congenital toxoplasmosis: a decision-analytic economic model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5: e1333.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Noble J, Hollands H, Forooghian F, Yazdani A, Sharma S, et al. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of anterior uveitis investigation by Canadian ophthalmologists. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2008;43:652–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cernat A, Jamieson M, Kavelaars R, Khalili S, Bhambhwani V, Mireskandari K, et al. Immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in children: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2022;106:211–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Prusa A, Kasper DC, Sawers L, Walter E, Hayde M, Stillwaggon E. Congenital toxoplasmosis in Austria: prenatal screening for prevention is cost-saving. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2017;11: e0005648.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dave H. Simultaneous vs sequential bilateral cataract surgery for infants with congenital cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2010;128:1050. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Minden K, Niewerth M, Listing J, Möbius D, Thon A, Ganser G, et al. The economic burden of juvenile idiopathic arthritis—results from the German paediatric rheumatologic database. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:863–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dave H, Gordillo L, Yang Z, Zhang MS, Hubbard GB, Olsen TW. The societal burden of blindness secondary to retinopathy of prematurity in Lima, Peru. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2012;154:750–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Korvenranta E, Lehtonen L, Rautava L, Häkkinen U, Andersson S, Gissler M, et al. Impact of very preterm birth on health care costs at five years of age. Pediatrics. 2010;125:e1109–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang J, Jin L, Lu Q, Botah RR, Ali R, Li J, et al. Barriers, costs, and attitudes toward pediatric cataract surgery at two large facilities in China and India. Ophthalmic Epidemiol [Internet]. 2019;26:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2018.1513043?needAccess=true.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Anderzén-Carlsson A. CHARGE Syndrome-a five case study of the syndrome characteristics and health care consumption during the first year in life. J Pediatr Nurs [Internet]. 2015;30:6–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Connor PM, Chou S-L, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE. Costs of vision impairment in childhood and youth: diary case studies. Optom Vis Sci [Internet]. 2008;85:1106–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wright SE, Keeffe JE, Thies LS. Direct costs of blindness in Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2000;28:140–2. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9071.2000.00296.x?download=true.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rahi JS, Cable N. Severe visual impairment and blindness in children in the UK. Lancet [Internet]. 2003;362:1359–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rothschild MI, Russ R, Brennan KA, Williams CJ, Berrones D, Patel B, et al. The economic model of retinopathy of prematurity (EcROP) screening and treatment: Mexico and the United States. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2016;168:110–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dunbar JA, Hsu V, Christensen M, Black B, Williams P, Beauchamp G. Cost-utility analysis of screening and laser treatment of retinopathy of prematurity. J Am Assoc Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2009;13:186–90.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Roberts T, Frenkel JK. Estimating income losses and other preventable costs caused by congenital toxoplasmosis in people in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1990;196:249–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu D, Huang L, Mukkamala L, Khouri AS. The economic burden of childhood glaucoma. J Glaucoma [Internet]. 2016;25:790–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wittenborn JS, Zhang X, Feagan CW, Crouse WL, Shrestha S, Kemper AR, et al. The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the united states population younger than 40 years. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1728–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Naguib MM, Soares RR, Anzures R, Kamel J, Chandrasekar EK, Rothschild M, et al. Regionally specific economic impact of screening and treating retinopathy of prematurity in middle-income societies in the Philippines. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus [Internet]. 2019;56:388–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rothschild MI, Russ R, Brennan KA, Williams CJ, Berrones D, Patel B, et al. The economic model of retinopathy of prematurity (EcROP) screening and treatment: Mexico and the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;168:110–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shamanna B, Dandona L, Rao GN. Economic burden of blindness in India. Indian J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 1998;46:169–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Javitt J, Cas RD, Chiang YP. Cost-effectiveness of screening and cryotherapy for threshold retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics [Internet]. 1993;91:859–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Korvenranta E, Lehtonen L, Rautava L, Häkkinen U, Andersson S, Gissler M, et al. Impact of very preterm birth on health care costs at five years of age. Pediatrics [Internet]. 2010;125:e1109–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jackson KM, Scott KE, Zivin JG, Bateman DA, Flynn JT, Keenan JD, et al. Cost-utility analysis of telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity management. Arch Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2008;126:493–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu D, Huang L, Mukkamala L, Khouri AS. The economic burden of childhood glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:790–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Tasman W, Brown HC. Cost-effectiveness of treatment for threshold retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics [Internet]. 1999;104:e47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jackson KM, Scott KE, Graff Zivin J, Bateman DA, Flynn JT, Keenan JDCMF. Cost-utility analysis of telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity management. Arch Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2008;126:4–493.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kamholz KL, Cole CH, Gray JE, Zupancic JAF. Cost-effectiveness of early treatment for retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics [Internet]. 2009;123:262–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hughes DA, Culeddu G, Plumpton CO, Wood E, Dick AD, Jones AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adalimumab for the treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ophthalmology [Internet]. 2019;126:415–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lyons CJ, Lambert SR, Taylor D, Hoyt CS. Taylor and Hoyt’s Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 6th edition. 2022. ISBN: 9780702082986.

  50. Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo-Soares V, White M, et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016;5:164.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. 6.2. 2021. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_15/15_6_3_meta_analysis_of_resource_use_and_cost_data.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2022.

  52. Meads C, Hyde C. What is the cost of blindness? [Internet]. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1201–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, Devlin N, Ratcliffe J. Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going? Pharmacoeconomics [Internet]. 2020;38:325–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00873-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ramanan AV, Dick AD, Jones AP, McKay A, Williamson PR, Compeyrot-Lacassagne S, et al. Adalimumab plus methotrexate for uveitis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1637–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Russell S, Bennett J, Wellman JA, Chung DC, Yu ZF, Tillman A, et al. Efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in patients with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2017;390:849–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zimmermann MR, Lubinga SJ, Rind D, Chapman RH, Carlson JJ. A cost-effectiveness analysis of voretigene neparvovec for vision loss due to biallelic Rpe65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Value Health. 2018;21:S205–6.

  57. Viriato D, Bennett N, Sidhu R, Hancock E, Lomax H, Trueman D, et al. An economic evaluation of voretigene neparvovec for the treatment of biallelic RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies in the UK. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1233–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Dale NJ, Sakkalou E, O’Reilly MA, Springall C, Sakki H, Glew S, et al. Home-based early intervention in infants and young children with visual impairment using the Developmental Journal: longitudinal cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol [Internet]. 2019;61:697–709.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Silveira S, Martin FJ, Flaherty M, Russell HC. Reporting on Australian childhood visual impairment: the first 10 years. Eye. 2022;36:1412–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Chong CF, McGhee CNJ, Dai SH. Causes of childhood low vision and blindness in New Zealand. Clin Exp Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2019;47:165–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Delay A, Rice M, Bush E, Harpster K. Interventions for children with cerebral visual impairment: a scoping review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022;65:469–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jacobs SE, Berg M, Hunt R, Tarnow-Mordi WO, Inder TE, Davis PG. Cooling for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003311.pub3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Juul SE, Comstock BA, Wadhawan R, Mayock DE, Courtney SE, Robinson T, et al. A randomized trial of erythropoietin for neuroprotection in preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:233–43.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Akisu M, Huseyinov A, Yalaz M, Cetin H, Kultursay N. Selective head cooling with hypothermia suppresses the generation of platelet-activating factor in cerebrospinal fluid of newborn infants with perinatal asphyxia. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2003;69:45–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Shankaran S, Laptook A, Wright LL, Ehrenkranz RA, Donovan EF, Fanaroff AA, et al. Whole-body hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy: animal observations as a basis for a randomized, controlled pilot study in term infants. Pediatrics. 2002;110:377–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhou WH, Cheng GQ, Shao XM, Liu XZ, Shan RB, Zhuang DY, et al. Selective head cooling with mild systemic hypothermia after neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial in China. J Pediatr [Internet]. 2010;157:367–72 (372.e1-3).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Marques AP, Ramke J, Cairns J, Butt T, Zhang JH, Jones I, et al. The economics of vision impairment and its leading causes: a systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;46: 101354.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Smith AF, Sadeq A, Kinzel E, Bhambhwani V. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Conducted for Interventions to Screen, Treat, and Manage Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Ophthalmic Epidemiol [Internet]. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2022.2084757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ungar WJ, Gerber A. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  70. World Health Organization (WHO). ICD-11: Vision impairment including blindness [Internet]. http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1103667651. Accessed 5 Oct 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgment

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Population, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK

    Lucinda J. Teoh, Salomey Kellett, Dipesh E. Patel, Mario Cortina-Borja, Ameenat Lola Solebo & Jugnoo S. Rahi

  2. Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Ameenat Lola Solebo & Jugnoo S. Rahi

  3. Ulverscroft Vision Research Group, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK

    Lucinda J. Teoh, Salomey Kellett, Dipesh E. Patel, Mario Cortina-Borja, Ameenat Lola Solebo & Jugnoo S. Rahi

  4. Moorfields NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK

    Dipesh E. Patel, Ameenat Lola Solebo & Jugnoo S. Rahi

  5. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK

    Dipesh E. Patel, Ameenat Lola Solebo & Jugnoo S. Rahi

Authors
  1. Lucinda J. Teoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salomey Kellett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dipesh E. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Cortina-Borja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ameenat Lola Solebo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jugnoo S. Rahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucinda J. Teoh.

Ethics declarations

Funding

LJT is funded by the Medical Research Council University College London Doctoral Training Programme, the grant that supported this work: MR/N013867/1. ALS is supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist grant (grant number CS-2018-18-ST2-005). ALS and JSR are supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centres at Moorfields Eye Hospital/University College London Institute of Ophthalmology. JSR is an NIHR Senior Investigator. DEP is funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300054). All research at Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health is made possible by the NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

LJT conceptualised the article, performed the literature search, screened all articles, extracted data and drafted the original manuscript. DEP and SK screened articles, extracted data and critically revised the manuscript. MCB supervised data visualisation and critically appraised the manuscript. ALS and JSR provided supervision on all aspects and critically appraised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval

This study did not require research ethics approval.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 37 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teoh, L.J., Kellett, S., Patel, D.E. et al. Evaluating the Quantity and Quality of Health Economic Literature in Blinding Childhood Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review. PharmacoEconomics 42, 275–299 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01311-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01311-5

Search

Navigation