Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35981773›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review.

Ritchie T J Geitenbeek, Thijs A Burghgraef, Mark Broekman, Bram P A Schop, Tom G F Lieverse, Roel Hompes, Klaas Havenga, Maarten Postma, Esther C J Consten

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ritchie T J GeitenbeekDepartment of Surgery, Meander MC, Amersfoort, The Netherlands rtj.geitenbeek@meandermc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4707-0319
Thijs A BurghgraefDepartment of Surgery, Meander MC, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Mark BroekmanDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4497-9399
Bram P A SchopDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Tom G F LieverseDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roel HompesDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Klaas HavengaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maarten PostmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Esther C J ConstenDepartment of Surgery, Meander MC, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsRoboticsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRectumSystematic Reviews as TopicTreatment Outcomecolorectal surgeryhealth economicsoncology

Identifiers

PMID35981773
PMCPMC9394195
OpenAlexW4292243002

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.