ArticleClinical medicine. Oncology2009
Hospital costs of colorectal cancer care.
Article in Clinical medicine. Oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The global impact of non-communicable diseases on healthcare spending and national income: a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Morbidity and costs of diverting ileostomy in transanal total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
- Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2013Review
- Inter-relationships between the economic and emotional consequences of colorectal cancer for patients and their families: a qualitative study.BMC gastroenterology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn a hospital based setting, identify factors which influence the cost of colorectal cancer care?
designRetrospective case note review
settingNottingham, United Kingdom
participants227 patients treated for colorectal cancer
methodsRetrospective review of the hospital records provided the primary data for the costing study and included all CRC related resource consumption over the study period.
resultsOf 700 people identified, 227 (32%) sets of hospital notes were reviewed. The median age of the study group was 70.3 (IQR 11.3) years and there were 128 (56%) males. At two years, there was a significant difference in costs between Dukes D cancers ( pound3641) and the other stages ( pound3776 Dukes A; pound4921 Dukes B). Using univariate and multivariate regression, the year of diagnosis, Dukes stage of disease, intensive nursing care, stoma requirements and recurrent disease all significantly affected the total cost of care.
conclusionsCRC remains costly with no significant difference in costs if diagnosed before compared to after 1992. Very early and very late stage cancers remain the least costly stage of cancers to treat. Other significant effectors of hospital costs were the site of cancer (rectal), intensive nursing care, recurrent disease and the need for a stoma.
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.