ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2014
Cost and effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Retrospective Analysis Comparing VATS Cost Discrepancies and Outcomes in Primary Lung Cancer vs. Second Primary Lung Cancer Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of costs of hospitalization of patients with primary lung cancer after lobectomy with access through classic thoracotomy and VATS in the conditions of financing based on diagnosis-related groups.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Is incentive spirometry beneficial for patients with lung cancer receiving video-assisted thoracic surgery?BMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Article
- Cost and effectiveness of lung lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based matched case-control study.Thoracic cancer · 2016Article
- Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer is beneficial to elderly patients.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional surgery (CS). We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of VATS vs. CS for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC-c-stage-I) patients from the payer's perspective (National Health Insurance).
methodsWe identified NSCLC-c-stage-I patients diagnosed and received surgery within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer and death registries, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was 1 year. We included potential confounding covariables through literature searching and our own experience, and used a propensity score to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment.
resultsOur study population constituted 966 patients. The mean hospital stay [days, standard deviation (SD)] were 14.4 [7] and 16.1 (7.7) for VATS and CS respectively (P=0.002). The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was $22,316 vs. $21,976 and 0.98 vs. 0.974 for VATS vs. CS. The probability for VATS to be cost-effective (i.e., positive net benefit) was 0.49 & 0.56 at willingness-to-pay (WTP) 50,000 & 100,000 USD/life-year, respectively.
conclusionsWe provide the first empirical evidence that when compared to CS, VATS was potentially cost-effective in the short term (1 year) within the common WTP levels in Taiwan.
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.