Research Appraisals
Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.
Showing 3 appraisals
PloS one
Disparity of ophthalmic surgeries in Japan
PURPOSE: Although regional disparities in access to surgical care have been reported across medical specialties, nationwide evaluations of variation in ophthalmic surgical services remain limited. This study examined prefecture-level differences in major ophthalmic surgeries in Japan using publicly available claims data. METHODS: We analyzed the ninth release of the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB Open Data) for fiscal year 2022 (April 2022-March 2023). Prefecture-level procedure counts were extracted for cataract surgery (K282), vitrectomy (K279-K281 and related codes), glaucoma surgery (relevant K-codes), and corneal transplantation. To reduce potential underestimation in non-Diagnosis Procedure Combination settings, ophthalmology-related procedures reimbursed under the Short-Stay Surgery Basic Fee 3 (A400) were identified and incorporated according to predefined mapping rules. Surgical rates per 100,000 population and per board-certified ophthalmologist were calculated. Regional inequality was quantified using population-weighted Gini coefficients. Associations between ophthalmologist density and surgical volume were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Nationwide totals were 1,777,502 cataract surgeries, 154,336 vitrectomies, 80,753 glaucoma surgeries, and 2,895 corneal transplantations. Prefecture-level surgical rates per 100,000 population varied 1.8-fold for cataract surgery, 3.3-fold for vitrectomy, and 7.8-fold for glaucoma surgery. Several prefectures reported no corneal transplantation cases. Population-weighted Gini coefficients were 0.064 for cataract surgery, 0.125 for vitrectomy, 0.190 for glaucoma surgery, and 0.351 for corneal transplantation. Similar patterns were observed after adjusting for age structure, indicating that regional disparities were not solely explained by demographic differences. Ophthalmologist density varied 2.5-fold across prefectures and was positively correlated with surgical volume for cataract surgery and vitrectomy, but not for glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Using nationwide claims data, we identified substantial regional variation in major ophthalmic surgical procedures in Japan, with greater inequality observed for more specialized surgeries. These findings provide a population-level description of ophthalmic surgical distribution and may inform future evaluations of healthcare resource allocation.
27 Apr 2026
Read appraisal →Journal of medical economics
Value frameworks for digital health technologies: a comparative analysis
AIMS: This study aimed to review and compare existing value frameworks for digital health technologies (DHTs) and identify common domains to guide their evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, along with citation and website searches, was conducted in August 2025. English-language publications that provided guidance on evaluating value of DHTs were included. A narrative review approach was employed to synthesize findings and identify key value domains and indicators. RESULTS: From an initial pool of 1,132 articles, four met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the review, supplemented by additional frameworks from relevant organizations. Six core value domains were identified: technical and security aspects, data rights and governance, clinical characteristics, economic characteristics, health inequalities, and user preferences. Five value frameworks from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service, Digital Therapeutic Alliance, World Bank, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review-Peterson Health Technology Institute, and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were compared across these domains. A heat map analysis demonstrated variation in the inclusion of indicators, reflecting differing stakeholder priorities and perspectives. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include potential bias, subjectivity, and limited scope inherent in a narrative review, although elements of PRISMA were applied to reduce risks. Non-English frameworks and those specific to certain technologies were excluded. Additionally, frameworks for both DHTs and digital therapeutics were considered together. CONCLUSION: Six core value domains are consistently emphasized across value frameworks. However, variations across value frameworks highlights the influence of stakeholder needs and priorities. Further research is needed to refine these frameworks and support consistent and informed decision-making in DHTs adoption and implementation. Digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly used in healthcare, but their value is assessed in variable ways. We reviewed published studies to identify common elements. Six key areas emerged: technical and security aspects, data rights and governance, clinical and economic characteristics, health inequalities, and user preferences. While some areas are consistently included, others vary across frameworks. Our findings suggest that more consistent approaches could support clear decisions about adopting digital health tools.
25 Apr 2026
Read appraisal →Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
The impact of socioeconomic status in hernia treatment: a qualitative systematic review.
INTRODUCTION: Hernias are among the most common surgical conditions worldwide. However, access to optimal treatment remains disproportionately distributed. Socioeconomic disparities play a critical role in determining whether patients receive timely surgical intervention, access to minimally invasive techniques, or suffer from postoperative complications due to delayed or suboptimal care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic disparities on the treatment of ventral hernia repair. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted using MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and LILACS, from inception until March 2026 without any filter applied. A search strategy was created using the MeSH terms. Our inclusion criteria comprise studies related to socioeconomic disparities in ventral hernia repair within the United States. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, socioeconomic variables, and outcome definitions, a meta-analysis was not feasible, and findings were synthesized using a narrative synthesis. A qualitative assessment of included studies was made using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, ROBINS-I. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included, encompassing 2,096,513 patients with ventral hernia. Most were retrospective cohorts, with sample sizes ranging from a few hundred to over 665,000 patients. Across studies, patients with government funded insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) generally experienced higher rates of complications, readmissions, and recurrences compared to commercial insured patients, although the magnitude of association varied. Odds ratios demonstrated increased risks of wound complications, readmission, and recurrence among government funded insured and uninsured patients, while commercial insured and higher-income patients were more likely to undergo advanced surgical approaches and had shorter hospital length of stay. Some studies also highlighted socioeconomic and racial disparities, with vulnerable populations and minority groups showing disproportionately higher complication rates and different patterns of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: This systematic study demonstrates significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in ventral hernia repair. Government funded insurance holders or lower incomers, faced higher complication rates, more emergent presentations, and worse outcomes, including increased mortality and readmissions. Moreover, they usually have less access to minimally invasive and robotic techniques. These inequities highlight systemic barriers in healthcare access.
18 Apr 2026
Read appraisal →