Review and analysis of history and utilization of panretinal photocoagulation and ranibizumab after publication of protocol S
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We describe the history, utilization, and series results of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and ranibizumab and provide an analysis of PRP and ranibizumab usage before versus after the publication of the 2-year and 5-year results of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol S trial. RECENT FINDINGS: Number of ranibizumabs performed began to increase and number of PRPs performed began to decrease in 2016. After publication of the 2-year results, there was significant negative trend in PRP services and significant positive trend in ranibizumab services (both P < 0.001). After publication of the 5-year results, there was significant negative trend in PRP services (P = 0.003). There were significant negative trends (all P < 0.001) in reimbursement factors for PRP from 2013 to 2020: average work RVU (wRVU), nonfacility physical expense RVU, facility PE RVU, malpractice RVU (MP RVU). SUMMARY: Both PRP and ranibizumab have undergone numerous trials comparing their efficacy to other treatment options or no treatment at all. The publication of the 2-year results of Protocol S was associated with an increase in utilization of ranibizumab and decrease in utilization of PRP, with continued decrease after the publication of the 5-year results.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Review and analysis of history and utilization of panretinal photocoagulation and ranibizumab after publication of protocol S
- Date Crossref
- 12/07/2024
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.