ArticleAtencion primaria2000
[Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the most cost-effective alternative of treatment of moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia and to learn whether the outcome can be varied by changing the cost or effectiveness of the alternatives.
designThe study is made by a decision tree in order to test the cost-effectiveness (CE) rate of three treatment strategies: a) watchful waiting; if there is no response a drug is administered and if there is no response transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is done, b) pharmacological treatment, and if there is no response TURP is done, and c) to apply TURP initially. The treatment is simulated taking 1000 patients with MBPH and testing the outcome of events and probabilities in a two-year treatment and from the point of view of the health system as services supplier. MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsEffectiveness is obtained from an american experts' consensus. Only the direct fangible costs are taken into account, in constant 1998 pts. An univariant simple sensitivity analysis is made considering the cost variables of TURP and from the drugs in an acceptable range of +/- 20%, and the effectiveness of the watchful waiting and the pharmacological treatment. The lower cost alternative per improved patient (IP) is the watchful waiting (77,069 pts./IP) followed by the drug treatment (118,656 pts./IP) and lastly the TURP (456,642 pts./IP). Variations in the variable values make no difference in the relative positions of the tested alternatives.
conclusionsFrom the pharmacoeconomics point of view the MBPH treatment must be iniciated by watchful waiting, proceeding to drug administration only if there is a positive response and to make use of TURP when the pharmacological procedures have not been effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.