Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29480429›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018

Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.

Karen Ruben Husby, Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup, Gunnar Lose, Niels Klarskov

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karen Ruben HusbyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. Karen.hansen.husby.03@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2148-1985
Cæcilie Krogsgaard TolstrupDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Gunnar LoseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Niels KlarskovDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKHerlev Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common diagnosis that imposes high and ever-growing costs to the healthcare economy. Numerous surgical techniques for the treatment of POP exist, but there is no consensus about which is the ideal technique for treating apical prolapse. The aim of this study was to estimate hospital costs for the most frequently performed operation, vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VH) and the uterus-preserving Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP), when including costs of postoperative activities.

methodsThe study was based on a historical matched cohort including 590 patients (295 pairs) who underwent VH or MP during 2010-2014 owing to apical prolapse. The patients were matched according to age and preoperative prolapse stage and followed for a minimum of 20 months. Data were collected from four national registries and electronic medical records. Unit costs were obtained from relevant departments, hospital administration, calculated, or estimated by experts. The hospital perspective was applied for costing the resource use.

resultsTotal costs for the first 20 months after operation were 3,514 € per VH patient versus 2,318 € per MP patient. The cost difference between the techniques was 898 € (95% confidence interval [CI]: 818-982) per patient when analyzing the primary operation only and 1,196 € (CI: 927-1,465) when including subsequent activities within 20 months (p < 0.0001).

conclusionsThe MP is substantially less expensive than the commonly used VH from a 20-month time perspective. Healthcare costs can be reduced by one third if MP is preferred over VH in the treatment of apical prolapse.

Indexed as

Hospital CostsCohort StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansHysterectomy, VaginalLigamentsOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPelvic Organ ProlapseTreatment OutcomeActivity-based costing analysisApical prolapseEconomic analysisManchester–Fothergill procedurePelvic organ prolapseVaginal hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID29480429
OpenAlexW2792449995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.