Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34241824›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2021

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies.

Edward C F Wilson, Alice Wreford, Priya Tamer, Kelly Leonard, Hannah Brechka, Vincent J Gnanapragasam

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edward C F WilsonHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. edwilson@phmr.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8369-1577
Alice WrefordHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Priya TamerCambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Kelly LeonardCambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Hannah BrechkaCambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Vincent J GnanapragasamCambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
University of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Invention for Innovation II-LB-0716-20001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area.

methodsa) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts.

resultsTransperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease.

conclusionsTransperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.

Identifiers

PMID34241824
PMCPMC8611168
OpenAlexW3178171179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.