Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36294132›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery.

Yusuf Sheikh, Hareef Asunramu, Heather Low, Dev Gakhar, Keerthi Muthukumar, Husam Yassin, Laure de Preux

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of selective prophylactic mesh placement after stoma closure.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Type of mesh and wall plane in prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: A network meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. The clinical applications of D-type parastomal hernia repair surgery.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Yusuf SheikhFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1652-9745
Hareef AsunramuFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8360-3784
Heather LowFaculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK.
Dev GakharFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK.
Keerthi MuthukumarFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK.
Husam YassinFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1757-4778
Laure de PreuxDepartment of Economics and Public Policy, Business School, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential.

methodsA cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (

resultsThe CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

conclusionThe results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.

Indexed as

Incisional HerniaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurgical Meshcost-utility analysisincisional herniamesh prophylaxisstoma closure

Identifiers

PMID36294132
PMCPMC9602752

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.