Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35016655›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

A cost-minimisation analysis of performing point-of-care ultrasonography on patients with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy in general practice: a decision analytical model.

Swaathi Kiritharan, Mille Vang Johanson, Martin Bach Jensen, Janus Nikolaj Laust Thomsen, Camilla Aakjær Andersen, Cathrine Elgaard Jensen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. 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 32% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Swaathi KiritharanThe Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 10, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark. swaathi97@hotmail.com.
Mille Vang JohansonThe Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 10, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Martin Bach JensenCenter for General Practice, Aalborg University, Fyrkildevej 7, 1,3, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Janus Nikolaj Laust ThomsenCenter for General Practice, Aalborg University, Fyrkildevej 7, 1,3, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Camilla Aakjær AndersenCenter for General Practice, Aalborg University, Fyrkildevej 7, 1,3, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Cathrine Elgaard JensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Danish Center for Healthcare Improvements, Fredrik Bajers Vej 5, 176, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpotting and light vaginal bleeding are common and usually harmless symptoms in early pregnancy. Still, vaginal bleeding may be the first sign of an abortion and often causes distress to pregnant women and leads to an expectation of an ultrasonography examination of the uterus. As point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is increasingly being integrated into general practice, these patients may be clinically evaluated and managed by general practitioners (GPs). This can potentially reduce referrals of patients from the primary to the secondary healthcare sector resulting in societal cost-savings. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether the accessibility of POCUS in general practice for patients with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy is cost-saving compared to usual practice where GPs do not have access to POCUS. A secondary purpose of this study was to estimate a remuneration for GPs performing POCUS on these patients in general practice.

methodsA cost-minimisation analysis was based on a decision tree model reflecting the two alternatives: general practice with and without GPs having access to POCUS. The robustness of the model results was investigated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the following deterministic sensitivity analyses: one-way analyses for the model input parameters and a scenario analysis with a change from a societal to a healthcare sector perspective. An expected remuneration reflecting the add-on cost of Danish GPs performing POCUS was estimated based on the related costs: cost of an ultrasonography scanner, GP's time consumption, ultrasonography training, and utensils per scanning.

resultsThe difference in average cost between the two alternatives from a societal perspective was estimated to be €110, in favour of general practice with GPs using POCUS. The deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of the results to plausible changes in the input parameters. The expected remuneration for performing POCUS in this specific setting was estimated to be €32 per examination.

conclusionHaving GPs perform POCUS on patients with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy is cost-saving compared to usual practice. The results should be taken with caution as this study was based on early modelling with uncertainties associated with the input parameters in the model.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousGeneral PracticeFemaleHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPregnancyUltrasonographyUterine HemorrhageCost SavingsDecision analysisFirst Pregnancy TrimesterGeneral practiceMedical economicsUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35016655
PMCPMC8753911
OpenAlexW4205820131

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.