Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29175808›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Time Gain Needed for In-Ambulance Telemedicine: Cost-Utility Model.

Alexis Valenzuela Espinoza, Stefanie Devos, Robbert-Jan van Hooff, Maaike Fobelets, Alain Dupont, Maarten Moens, Ives Hubloue, Door Lauwaert, Pieter Cornu, Raf Brouns and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Can drones save lives and money? An economic evaluation of airborne delivery of automated external defibrillators.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors.

Alexis Valenzuela EspinozaInteruniversity Center for Health Economics Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4759-9068
Stefanie DevosInteruniversity Center for Health Economics Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-9039
Robbert-Jan van HooffFaculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2712-2772
Maaike FobeletsInteruniversity Center for Health Economics Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8316-6422
Alain DupontResearch Group Clinical Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9403-0494
Maarten MoensDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0577-5449
Ives HubloueDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4535-801X
Door LauwaertDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-1332
Pieter CornuResearch Group Clinical Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-0241
Raf BrounsFaculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-5699
Koen PutmanInteruniversity Center for Health Economics Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7235-3759

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is a very time-sensitive pathology, and many new solutions target the optimization of prehospital stroke care to improve the stroke management process. In-ambulance telemedicine, defined by live bidirectional audio-video between a patient and a neurologist in a moving ambulance and the automated transfer of vital parameters, is a promising new approach to speed up and improve the quality of acute stroke care. Currently, no evidence exists on the cost effectiveness of in-ambulance telemedicine.

objectiveWe aim to develop a first cost effectiveness model for in-ambulance telemedicine and use this model to estimate the time savings needed before in-ambulance telemedicine becomes cost effective.

methodsCurrent standard stroke care is compared with current standard stroke care supplemented with in-ambulance telemedicine using a cost-utility model measuring costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a health care perspective. We combine a decision tree with a Markov model. Data from the UZ Brussel Stroke Registry (2282 stroke patients) and linked hospital claims data at individual level are combined with literature data to populate the model. A 2-way sensitivity analysis varying both implementation costs and time gain is performed to map the different cost-effective combinations and identify the time gain needed for cost effectiveness and dominance. For several modeled time gains, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve is calculated and mapped in 1 figure.

resultsUnder the base-case scenario (implementation cost of US $159,425) and taking a lifetime horizon into account, in-ambulance telemedicine is a cost-effective strategy compared to standard stroke care alone starting from a time gain of 6 minutes. After 12 minutes, in-ambulance telemedicine becomes dominant, and this results in a mean decrease of costs by US -$30 (95% CI -$32 to -$29) per patient with 0.00456 (95% CI 0.00448 to 0.00463) QALYs on average gained per patient. In over 82% of all probabilistic simulations, in-ambulance telemedicine remains under the cost-effectiveness threshold of US $47,747.

conclusionsOur model suggests that in-ambulance telemedicine can be cost effective starting from a time gain of 6 minutes and becomes a dominant strategy after approximately 15 minutes. This indicates that in-ambulance telemedicine has the potential to become a cost-effective intervention assuming time gains in clinical implementations are realized in the future.

Indexed as

cost effectivenessprehospitalstroketelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29175808
PMCPMC5722977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.