OBJECTIVES: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the primary cause of vision loss among older Americans and results in significant cost and reduced quality of life.  This study reviewed the methodology and results of published cost-utility analyses (CUA) in AMD treatments. METHODS: We identified AMD-related CUAs published from 2000 through 2010 using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegisty.org), which contains detailed information on more than 2,600 CUAs.  In addition to the standard auditing process, we recorded model structure, cost and effectiveness inputs, and assumptions employed in the models. RESULTS: We identified 26 AMD-related CUAs containing 55 standardized incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, expressed as $US2010 per QALY) and 82 utility weights.  The most common type of intervention was pharmaceuticals (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, vitamin therapy and/or antioxidants), followed by medical procedures (laser photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy with verteporfin).  Approximately 55% of the reported ICERs were either dominant (less expensive and more effective) or below $50,000 per QALY gained.  Most of the CUAs used Markov modeling over a lifetime horizon and estimated ICERs from payer’s perspective.  Vision acuity was typically modeled with static rather than dynamic states.  Most CUAs extrapolated effectiveness data beyond the timeframe of clinical trials by using the “last-observation-carried forward” approach.  Most studies considered binocular AMD, but only considered the treatment, monitoring, and utility weight of the better-seeing eye.  Key drivers of ICERs included the clinical efficacy of treatment, utility weights, time horizon, and discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: CUAs in AMD therapies suggest good value in many cases, but great variations exist in the cost-effectiveness of AMD interventions, as well as methods and assumptions employed in the CUA models.  Few studies modeled both the better-seeing and worse-seeing eyes among AMD patients.  Future research is needed to better understand the cost-effectiveness of treating bilateral AMD based on longer-term data.