Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26448919›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2015

Cost comparison between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors.

Myung Jin Nam, Dae Kyung Sohn, Chang Won Hong, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Sung Chan Park, Jae Hwan Oh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Myung Jin NamCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Dae Kyung SohnCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Chang Won HongCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Kyung Su HanCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Byung Chang KimCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Hee Jin ChangCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Sung Chan ParkCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Jae Hwan OhCenter for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
National Cancer Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare medical costs of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal tumors.

methodsThe records of 80 patients who underwent ESD and 32 who underwent TEM for the treatment of rectal tumors were collected. Factors compared in the two groups included patient age, sex and clinical characteristics, as well as hospital stay, procedure time, instrument use, medications, postoperative complications, and imaging and laboratory findings. Costs were analyzed based on medical insurance fees, as set publicly by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea. Medical costs were also divided into patient copayments and National Health Insurance (NHI) Corporation charges.

resultsPatient characteristics, including age, sex, and comorbidities, were similar in the two groups, as were procedure time, histologic diagnosis, tumor size and distance from the anal verge, hospital stay, and complication rates. Median total hospital costs were significantly lower in the ESD than in the TEM group (1,214 United State dollars [USD] vs. 1,686 USD, P < 0.001). The costs for consumables, drugs and laboratory as well as operation fee were also significantly lower in the ESD than in the TEM group. However, patient copayments in the ESD group were significantly higher than in the TEM group (928 USD vs. 496 USD, P < 0.001), because ESD procedure for rectal tumors is not yet covered by the Korean NHI.

conclusionOverall direct medical costs were significantly lower for ESD than for TEM in the treatment of rectal tumors.

Indexed as

Costs and cost analysisEndoscopic surgical procedureLocal excisionRectal neoplasmsTransanal endoscopic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID26448919
PMCPMC4595820
OpenAlexW1886162365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.