Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32312310›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2020

Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence.

Mehdi Javanbakht, Eoin Moloney, Miriam Brazzelli, Sheila Wallace, Muhammad Imran Omar, Ash Monga, Lucky Saraswat, Phil Mackie, Mari Imamura, Jemma Hudson and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Editorial Comment from Dr Horiguchi toJournal of stem cells & regenerative medicine · 2022
    Article
  2. 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

14 authors.

Mehdi JavanbakhtInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Eoin MoloneyInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. eoin.moloney@newcastle.ac.uk.
Miriam BrazzelliHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Sheila WallaceInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Muhammad Imran OmarGuidelines Office Methodology Supervisor, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Ash MongaUniversity Hospitals Southampton Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Lucky SaraswatAberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Phil MackieScottish Public Health Network, NHS Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Mari ImamuraHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jemma HudsonHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Michal ShimonovichHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Graeme MacLennanHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Luke ValeInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Dawn CraigInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women are commonly employed following the failure of minimally invasive therapies. Due to the limited information available on the relative cost-effectiveness of available surgeries for treating SUI, a de novo economic analysis was conducted to assess costs and effects of all relevant surgeries. To inform the economic analysis, the objective of this review was to identify and assess the quality of existing economic evaluation studies on different surgical interventions for the treatment of SUI in women.

methodsThe following databases were searched during the review process: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), MEDLINE In-Process, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and Health Management Information Consortium and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA registry). The key criteria for inclusion were that the study population included women with SUI and that the surgical interventions considered were utilised as either a primary or a follow-up surgery. The review included only full economic evaluations. Studies were quality assessed using the Drummond checklist for economic evaluations. No quantitative synthesis of the results by meta-analysis was conducted due to the high methodological heterogeneity.

resultsTwenty-six economic evaluations were included, of which 13 were model-based analyses. Surgical treatments assessed most frequently were mid-urethral slings and open and laparoscopic colposuspension. There were some differences in the methodological approaches taken, including differences in type of economic analysis, perspective, time horizon, types of resource use, and costs and outcomes that were included in the analysis. The majority of studies conducted a cost-utility analysis from a health system perspective and applied a time horizon of between 1 and 5 years. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that single-incision mini-sling and mid-urethral slings are among the most cost-effective options.

conclusionsThe review has shown that methods used for the economic evaluation of surgical treatments for SUI vary widely in terms of study design, analysis type, compared alternatives, time horizon, costing methodologies and effect outcomes. Future economic evaluation studies on surgical treatments for SUI may be improved by the application of available guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registered in PROSPERO in 2016, CRD42016049339.

Indexed as

Suburethral SlingsUrinary Incontinence, StressCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansState MedicineUrologic Surgical ProceduresEconomic evaluationStress urinary incontinenceSurgical treatmentsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32312310
PMCPMC7169003

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.