Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621291›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2022

Micro-cost analysis of single-use vs. reusable cystoscopy in a single-payer healthcare system.

Jaehoon Kim, Bruce Gao, Naeem Bhojani, Kevin C Zorn, Bilal Chughtai, Dean S Elterman

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Disposable flexible cystoscopes for removing double J catheter A budget impact analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jaehoon KimDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bruce GaoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Naeem BhojaniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Kevin C ZornDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Bilal ChughtaiDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, United States.
Dean S EltermanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAUniversité de Montréal · CACornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSingle-use flexible diagnostic cystoscopy has recently been developed with comparable functionality to reusable cystoscopes. Prior studies have demonstrated considerable upfront costs of reusable cystoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare costs of reusable cystoscopy to single-use cystoscopy in a single-payer, socialized healthcare system.

methodsA retrospective micro-cost analysis of reusable cystoscopy in a combined inpatient and outpatient setting at a single institution was performed. The cost analysis was divided into capital, maintenance, reprocessing, and labor. Annual costs were averaged over two fiscal years. Costs were amortized over five- and 10-year bases as appropriate. The results were compared to theoretical costs of single-use cystoscopes.

resultsThere were 3415 annual average cystoscopy cases with 171 cases per reusable cystoscope. The capital, maintenance, reprocessing, and labor costs of reusable cystoscopy were $96 000, $99 867, $247 855, and $65 317, respectively. The total annual costs per case for reusable and single-use cystoscopy were $149.06 and $245.57, respectively. The costs of reusable cystoscopy decreased with the number of procedures per year and intersected the costs of single-use cystoscopes at 1265 procedures per year. All costs were calculated in Canadian dollars ($CAD).

conclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of reusable cystoscopes is dependent on cystoscopy volume due to considerable upfront costs. Single-use cystoscopes are more cost-effective if the total number of cases performed is less than 1265 per year. Additional investigation into the cost-effectiveness of single-use cystoscopes as supplements in the outpatient setting or primary endoscopes in inpatient/emergency settings should be performed.

Identifiers

PMID35621291
PMCPMC9565074
OpenAlexW4281255355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.