Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926476›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2021

Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology.

Jeffrey Voigt, Michael Mosier, Ian M Gralnek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeffrey VoigtMedical Device Consultants of Ridgewood, Ridgewood, NJ, USA. meddevconsultant@aol.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1755-8612
Michael MosierDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Washburn University, Topeka, KS, USA.
Ian M GralnekRappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technicon Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Emek Medical Center · ILRidgewood Public Schools · USWashburn University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC).

methodsA new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750.

resultsAssuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833-$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC.

conclusionUsing the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1-$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyCost effectivenessMarkov model

Identifiers

PMID33926476
PMCPMC8082895
OpenAlexW3157592178

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.