Correction: Ophthalmol Ther (2023) 12:2005–2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00715-y


In the sentence beginning ‘When TAE regimens were compared, RBZ BS was dominant…’ of the Results section in the Abstract, the text ‘RBZ BS was dominant (higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lower total cost) to AFL TAE and AFL to RBZ TAE’ should have read ‘RBZ BS was dominant (higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lower total cost) to AFL TAE and AFL to RBZ BS TAE’.


In the sentence beginning ‘The top three influential parameters for RBZ BS TAE versus AFL TAE were…’ of the Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis section in Results, the text ‘(3) treatment frequency of AFL TAE in year 2 (lower to favorable for RBZ BS TAE)’ should have read ‘(3) treatment frequency of AFL TAE in year 2 (higher to favorable for RBZ BS TAE)’.


In the sentence beginning ‘Fourth, since the productivity loss of caregivers…’ under the Discussion, the text ‘with daily care related to the severity of visual impairment was available in existing studies and relied on expert opinions,…’ should have read ‘with daily care related to the severity of visual impairment was not available in existing studies and relied on expert opinions,…’.


The original article has been corrected.