Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30806806›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2019

Cost analysis of office-based transnasal esophagoscopy.

David J Wellenstein, Jimmie Honings, Henrieke W Schutte, Jasmijn M Herruer, Frank J A van den Hoogen, Henri A M Marres, Robert P Takes, Guido B van den Broek

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. 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
–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

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

  1. Office-based vs. operating room-performed laryngopharyngeal surgery: a review of cost differences.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Equipping your facial plastic clinic for office-based procedures.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Office-based COThe Laryngoscope · 2020
    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

8 authors.

David J WellensteinDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. david.wellenstein@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8437-5664
Jimmie HoningsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Henrieke W SchutteDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jasmijn M HerruerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frank J A van den HoogenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Henri A M MarresDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Robert P TakesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Guido B van den BroekDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough office-based transnasal esophagoscopy has been investigated extensively, a cost analysis is still lacking. We performed a cost analysis combined with feasibility study for two diagnostic processes: patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, and hypopharyngeal carcinoma.

methodsProspective cohort study.

resultsForty-one procedures were performed, of which 35 were fully completed. The procedure was well tolerated with mild complaints such as nasal or pharyngeal pain and burping. Four complications occurred: two minor epistaxis and two vasovagal reactions. In patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, transnasal esophagoscopy resulted in a cost saving of €94.43 (p 0.026) per procedure, compared to our regular diagnostic process. In patients with suspicion of hypopharyngeal carcinoma, cost savings were €831.41 (p 0.000) per case.

conclusionsCost analysis showed that office-based transnasal esophagoscopy can provide significant cost savings for the current standard of care. Furthermore, this procedure resulted in good patient acceptability and few complications.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareCost SavingsDeglutition DisordersEsophagoscopyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansHypopharyngeal NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsCost analysisHead and neck oncologyOffice-basedTopical anesthesiaTransnasal esophagoscopy

Identifiers

PMID30806806
PMCPMC6458968

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.