ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2017
A transition from using multi-step procedures to a fully integrated system for performing extracorporeal photopheresis: A comparison of costs and efficiencies.
Article in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2017. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is it possible to automate the discovery of process maps for the time-driven activity-based costing method? A systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating a New Photopheresis System: A Comparison with Two Established Systems on Cell Yield and Collection Efficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of procedure times and collection efficiencies using integrated and multistep nonintegrated procedures for extracorporeal photopheresis.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2022Article
- Pilot study of a new online extracorporeal photopheresis system in patients with steroid refractory or dependent chronic graft vs host disease.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2020Article
- A transition from using multi-step procedures to a fully integrated system for performing extracorporeal photopheresis: A comparison of costs and efficiencies.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2017Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital Hemobiotherapy Department, Paris, France, has been providing extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) since November 2011, and started using the Therakos MATERIALS AND
methodsThe total number of ECP procedures performed 2011-2015 was derived from department records. The time taken to complete a single ECP treatment using a multi-step technique and the fully integrated system at our department was assessed. Resource costs (2014€) were obtained for materials and calculated for personnel time required. Time-driven activity-based costing methods were applied to provide a cost comparison.
resultsThe number of ECP treatments per year increased from 225 (2012) to 727 (2015). The single multi-step procedure took 270 min compared to 120 min for the fully integrated system. The total calculated per-session cost of performing ECP using the multi-step procedure was greater than with the CELLEX
conclusionsFor hospitals considering a transition from multi-step procedures to fully integrated methods for ECP where cost may be a barrier, time-driven activity-based costing should be utilized to gain a more comprehensive understanding the full benefit that such a transition offers. The example from our department confirmed that there were not just cost and time savings, but that the time efficiencies gained with CELLEX
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.