Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31214891›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2019

Long term COST-minimization analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy.

María A Martínez-Maestre, Lidia M Melero-Cortés, Pluvio J Coronado, Carmen González-Cejudo, Nuria García-Agua, Antonio J García-Ruíz, Francisco Jódar-Sánchez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2020
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

María A Martínez-MaestreGynecology Unit, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Seville, Spain.
Lidia M Melero-CortésGynecology Unit, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Seville, Spain.
Pluvio J CoronadoWomen's Health Institute, San Carlos Clinic Hospital, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain. pcoronadom@sego.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0357-2015
Carmen González-CejudoGynecology Unit, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Seville, Spain.
Nuria García-AguaHealth Economics & Rational Use of Drugs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Antonio J García-RuízHealth Economics & Rational Use of Drugs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Francisco Jódar-SánchezBiomedical Informatics, Biomedical Engineering and Health Economy, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, IBiS/Virgen del Rocío University Hospital / CSIC / University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ESInstituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESHospital Clínico San Carlos · ESInstituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to carry out the economic evaluation, in term of a cost-minimization analysis that considers healthcare costs and indirect costs, of robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH) in female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions.

methodsCost-minimization analysis based on an analytic observational study of prospective cohorts with a five-year time horizon. Eligible participants were all female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions at tertiary hospital. The economic evaluation was conducted from a Spanish National Health Service and societal perspective, including healthcare costs and indirect costs. The costs are expressed in Euros from the year 2015.

resultsOne hundred sixty nine patients were analyzed, 68 in the RAH group and 101 in the CLH group. Average cost for the RAH group was €8982.42 compared to €8015.14 for the CLH group (incremental cost €967.27; p = 0.054). Healthcare cost is the most important component of total cost and represents 86.4% for the RAH group and 82.3% for the CLH group. The difference of €1169 (p = 0.01) in the average healthcare cost is mainly due to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the equipment (difference of €1206.39 in favor of RAH; p < 0.005). With regard to indirect costs, for patients in the RAH group the costs associated with loss of productivity were lower (difference of €203.42; p = 0.17), while the cost of trips to the hospital was higher (difference of €1.98; p = 0.66) in respect to CLH.

conclusionsOur findings reveal similar effectiveness between RAH and CLH, although CLH is the more efficient option from the point of view of an economic analysis based on cost-minimization.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationHysterectomyLaparoscopyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31214891
PMCPMC6734326
OpenAlexW2953061249

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.