Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32762036›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2020

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis.

A Gosselin-Tardif, M Abou-Khalil, J Mata, A Guigui, J Cools-Lartigue, L Ferri, L Lee, C Mueller

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Study on the Effect of Different Endoscopic Auxiliary Treatment of Gastric Mucosal Microtumor.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Gosselin-TardifDivision of General Surgery, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6168-431X
M Abou-KhalilDivision of General Surgery, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J MataDivision of General Surgery, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
A GuiguiDivision of Finance, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Cools-LartigueDivision of Thoracic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
L FerriDivision of Thoracic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
L LeeDivision of General Surgery, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
C MuellerDivision of Thoracic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Montreal General Hospital · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches.

methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision-tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12-month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta-analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed.

resultsIn the base-case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG.

conclusionIn this decision analysis model, LSG was cost-effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdenocarcinomaGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32762036
PMCPMC7528510
OpenAlexW3047594669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.