Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31656747›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2019

Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.

Michele Talso, Ioannis K Goumas, Guido M Kamphuis, Laurian Dragos, Tzevat Tefik, Olivier Traxer, Bhaskar K Somani

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Innovations in Kidney Stone Removal.Research and reports in urology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Michele TalsoUrology Department, Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale-(ASST) Vimercate Hospital, Vimercate, Italy.
Ioannis K GoumasUrology Department, Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale-(ASST) Vimercate Hospital, Vimercate, Italy.
Guido M KamphuisDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laurian DragosDepartment of Urology, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania.
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Olivier TraxerDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Tenon AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Azienda Ospedaliera di Desio e Vimercate · ITAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLHôpital Tenon · FRIstanbul University · TRUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBVictor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical data suggest an equipoise between single-use (disposable) and reusable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) in terms of scope characteristics, manipulation, view and clinical outcomes. The procedural cost of reusable fURS is dependent on the initial and repair cost, maintenance and scope sterilization and on the number of procedures performed/repair. We conducted a systematic review on the procedural cost ($) of fURS based on the individual authors reported data on the number of procedures performed before repair and to see if it is a feasible option compared to single use fURS. A systematic review carried out in a Cochrane style and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane library for all English language articles. All papers on fURS cost analysis were searched from 2000-2018 (19 years), which mentioned the cost of fURS based on the number of procedures performed and the repairs needed (procedure/repair) as reported by the individual authors. Six studies reported on both the number of procedures performed with number of repairs needed and the cost calculated/procedure in the given time period. The number of uses/repair in various studies varied between 8-29 procedures and the cost per procedure varied between $120-1,212/procedure. A significant trend was observed between the decreasing cost of repair with the number of usages. With studies reporting on a minimum of 20 cases/repair the mean cost was around $200/procedure. This is contrast to the disposable scopes such as Lithovue ($1,500-2,000/usage) and Pusen ($700/usage). The cost of reusable fURS is low in centres performing a high volume of procedures. Similarly, when a reasonable volume of procedures is performed before scope repair, the cost is lower than the disposable scopes. Although, the disposable and reusable scopes seem to be comparable in terms of their performance, this review proves that reusable fURS are still more cost effective than disposable scopes.

Indexed as

costcost analysisdisposableFlexible ureterorenoscopyretrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)reusableureterorenoscope

Identifiers

PMID31656747
PMCPMC6790417
OpenAlexW2972936113

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.