ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2017
The XprESS Multi-Sinus Dilation System for the Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Corticosteroid-Eluting Sinus Implant Following Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A UK-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The XprESS multi-sinus dilation system (XprESS) is a minimally invasive alternative to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) used in the treatment of people with chronic or recurrent acute sinusitis refractory to medical treatment. The manufacturer of XprESS, Entellus Medical, claims the technology is as effective as FESS in improving quality of life and is associated with quicker recovery times and reduced costs. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected XprESS for evaluation. Nine trials published in 13 papers were correctly identified by the company as relevant to the decision problem, including one randomised controlled trial (REMODEL study). From this evidence, the company concluded that XprESS is as beneficial as FESS for a range of clinical endpoints. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) agreed with the company's conclusion in a subgroup of patients, but judged that the evidence did not generalise to patients within the NHS fully. The company constructed a de novo costing model. XprESS generated cost-savings of £1302 per patient compared with FESS. The EAC critiqued and updated the model's inputs, with differences in results driven by changes in assumptions on procedure duration, length of hospital stay and the proportion of procedures undertaken in an outpatient setting under local anaesthetic. Although cost-incurring in the base case, XprESS generated cost savings under certain scenarios. The MTAC reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing positive draft recommendations. After public consultation NICE published this as Medical Technologies Guidance 30.
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.