Trial reportEpilepsia2019
Direct and indirect costs associated with stereotactic radiosurgery or open surgery for medial temporal lobe epilepsy: Results from the ROSE trial.
Trial report in Epilepsia, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Further advances in epilepsy.Journal of neurology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors at 17 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether a less-invasive approach to surgery for medically refractory temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with lower health care costs and costs of lost productivity over time, compared to open surgery.
methodsWe compared direct medical costs and indirect productivity costs associated with treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) in the ROSE (Radiosurgery or Open Surgery for Epilepsy) trial. Health care use was abstracted from hospital bills, the study database, and diaries in which participants recorded health care use and time lost from work while seeking care. Costs of use were calculated using a Medicare costing approach used in a prior study of the costs of ATL. The power of many analyses was limited by the sample size and data skewing.
resultsCombined treatment and follow-up costs (in thousands of US dollars) did not differ between SRS (n = 20, mean = $76.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 50.7-115.6) and ATL (n = 18, mean = $79.0, 95% CI = 60.09-103.8). Indirect costs also did not differ. More ATL than SRS participants were free of consciousness-impairing seizures in each year of follow-up (all P < 0.05). Costs declined following ATL (P = 0.005). Costs tended to increase over the first 18 months following SRS (P = 0.17) and declined thereafter (P = 0.06). This mostly reflected hospitalizations for SRS-related adverse events in the second year of follow-up. SIGNIFICANCE: Lower initial costs of SRS for medial temporal lobe epilepsy were largely offset by hospitalization costs related to adverse events later in the course of follow-up. Future studies of less-invasive alternatives to ATL will need to assess adverse events and major costs systematically and prospectively to understand the economic implications of adopting these technologies.
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.