ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2020
The CHOICES Study: Facility Level Comparative Cost, Resource Utilization, and Outcomes Analysis of Myomectomy Compared to Transcervical Fibroid Ablation.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Annual Economic Burden of Uterine Fibroids in the United States (2010 Versus 2022): A Comparative Cost-Analysis.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of combining transcervical fibroid ablation with operative hysteroscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Updates on the Surgical Approach to Fibroids: The Importance of Radiofrequency Ablation.Seminars in interventional radiology · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe CHOICES study compared short-term resource utilization, facility costs, and perioperative patient outcomes between transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA) with the Sonata® system and myomectomy through a case-matched comparative trial design. This is the first facility-level comparative study conducted for TFA. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study enrolled 88 patients from 4 centers equally divided among the two cohorts. The TFA arm consisted of 44 women who had enrolled in the SONATA Pivotal IDE trial, whereas the myomectomy arm included 44 patients who were identified through retrospective case-matching to the enrolled SONATA patients at the same 4 centers.
resultsTFA had a significantly lower mean operating room duration (90 minutes) and length of stay (5.2 hours) than myomectomy (143 minutes and 45.8 hours, respectively). The average total mean facility costs for TFA procedure ($7,563) were significantly lower than those associated with myomectomy ($11,425; p=0.002). TFA mean facility costs were also compared with other stratifications of myomectomy (inpatient or outpatient and surgical route). TFA facility costs were significantly lower than that associated with inpatient, abdominal, or laparoscopic myomectomy (all p<0.001).
conclusionTFA using the Sonata system has a significantly shorter operating room time and length of stay than myomectomy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. All procedure, anesthesia, laboratory, pathology, and pharmacy costs were significantly higher for myomectomy as compared to TFA. TFA was also associated with significantly lower facility procedure-related costs compared to myomectomy, including inpatient, abdominal, or laparoscopic myomectomy.
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.