ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2015
Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.
Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2015. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimNeuraxial blockade (epidural or spinal anesthesia/analgesia) with external cephalic version increases the external cephalic version success rate. Hospitals and insurers may affect access to neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version, but the costs to these institutions remain largely unstudied. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of neuraxial blockade use during external cephalic version from hospital and insurance payer perspectives. Secondarily, we estimated the effect of neuraxial blockade on cesarean delivery rates.
methodsA decision-analysis model was developed using costs and probabilities occurring prenatally through the delivery hospital admission. Model inputs were derived from the literature, national databases, and local supply costs. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness.
resultsNeuraxial blockade was cost saving to both hospitals ($30 per delivery) and insurers ($539 per delivery) using baseline estimates. From both perspectives, however, the model was sensitive to multiple variables. Monte Carlo simulation indicated neuraxial blockade to be more costly in approximately 50% of scenarios. The model demonstrated that routine use of neuraxial blockade during external cephalic version, compared to no neuraxial blockade, prevented 17 cesarean deliveries for every 100 external cephalic versions attempted.
conclusionsNeuraxial blockade is associated with minimal hospital and insurer cost changes in the setting of external cephalic version, while reducing the cesarean delivery rate.
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.