Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30167996›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2019

Cost Comparison of Single-Use Versus Reusable Bronchoscopes Used for Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy.

Anne Sohrt, Lars Ehlers, Flemming Witt Udsen, Anders Mærkedahl, Brendan A McGrath

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Single-use versus reusable medical devices in spinal fusion surgery: a hospital micro-costing analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne SohrtAmbu A/S, Baltorpbakken 13, 2750, Ballerup, Denmark. andm@ambu.com.
Lars EhlersDepartment of Business and Management, Fibigerstraede 11, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Flemming Witt UdsenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Frederik Bajers Vej 7, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Anders MærkedahlAmbu A/S, Baltorpbakken 13, 2750, Ballerup, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5818-1663
Brendan A McGrathWythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.
Ambu (Denmark) · DKAalborg University · DKUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth single-use and reusable bronchoscopes are suitable for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to visualise the trachea during the insertion process. To determine the least costly option, the price of single-use bronchoscopes must be weighed against the estimated average cost of a bronchoscopy with reusable equipment. In the latter case, the acquisition cost must be spread over the equipment's useful life and other relevant costs, such as reprocessing and repair, must be included.

objectiveThis study aimed to calculate the cost of using single-use or reusable bronchoscopes per PDT procedure.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing the costs of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes for PDT. Inclusion criteria were articles assessing the cost of single-use or reusable bronchoscopes, and where costs were divided into acquisition, reprocessing, and repair costs. A questionnaire regarding repair rates and costs for reusable bronchoscopes was sent to 366 hospitals in the US, UK, and Germany to supplement the identified literature.

resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-nine completed responses were received, of which 31 hospitals used reusable equipment for PDT. Literature research revealed an average acquisition cost of $US135 (SD 152) and reprocessing cost of $US123 (SD 128). Additionally, a combination of data from the literature and the questionnaires gave a repair cost per use of $US148 (SD 242), resulting in a total average cost of $US406 for reusable bronchoscopes and $US249 (SD 36) for single-use bronchoscopes per PDT procedure. Thus, the incremental cost per use of a reusable bronchoscope compared with a single-use bronchoscope was $US157.

conclusionsWe conclude that significant savings can be made by using single-use bronchoscopes to guide PDT in preference to reusable bronchoscopes. Results depend on hospital setting, the reprocessing procedures, annual bronchoscope procedures, individual repair cost, and repair rates.

Identifiers

PMID30167996
PMCPMC6533350
OpenAlexW2889457225

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.