A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs.

<bold>Introduction: </bold>Innovative drugs have been approved in ophthalmology. Thus, the number and importance of economic evaluation studies of ophthalmic drugs have been growing. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of ophthalmic drugs.<bold>Areas Covered: </bold>A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until November 2018 to identify full pharmacoeconomic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. The quality of studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist. Quality indicators were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. Ninety-five studies were included, 50 (52.6%) cost-utility analysis, 28 (29.5%) cost-effectiveness and 17 (17.9%) cost-effectiveness/cost-utility. All studies presented, at least, three methodological limitations. Cost-utility studies, studies conducted from a health system perspective, with time horizons longer than one-year and that rely on observational or observational and experimental data simultaneously are associated with higher quality. Only eight (8.4%) studies considered two eyes in the economic analysis and only 13 (13.7%) considered the natural history of the disease when extrapolating results for long-term analysis.<bold>Expert Opinion: </bold>The majority of the pharmacoeconomic studies were assessed as having good methodological quality, however, the methodological quality scores were sensitive to several indicators. Therefore, improving the quality of studies would enhance their usefulness in the decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]