Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37286916›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2023

Assessing micro- vs macro-costing approaches for treating appendicitis in children with appendicectomy or non-operatively.

Maria Chorozoglou, Isabel Reading, Simon Eaton, Shehryer Naqvi, Caroline Pardy, Keren Sloan, Christina Major, Natasha Demellweek, Nigel J Hall

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Maria ChorozoglouFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. M.Chorozoglou@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5070-4653
Isabel ReadingSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1457-6532
Simon EatonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Shehryer NaqviSt George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Caroline PardySt George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Keren SloanSouthampton Children's Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Christina MajorSouthampton Children's Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Natasha DemellweekAlder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Nigel J HallFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8570-9374
Southampton Children's Hospital · GBSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme 14/192/90
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe conducted a health economic sub-study within a feasibility RCT comparing a non-operative treatment pathway as an alternative to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. The objectives were to understand and assess data collection tools and methods and to determine indicative costs and benefits assessing the feasibility of conducting a full economic evaluation within the definitive trial.

methodsWe compared different methods of estimating treatment costs including micro-costing, hospital administrative data (PLICS) and health system (NHS) reference costs. We compared two different HRQoL instruments (CHU-9D and EQ-5D-5L) in terms of data completeness and sensitivity to change over time, including potential ceiling effects. We also explored how the timing of data collection and duration of the analysis could affect QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and the results of the cost-utility analysis (CUA) within the future RCT.

resultsUsing a micro-costing approach, the total per treatment costs were in alignment with hospital administrative data (PLICS). Average health system reference cost data (macro-costing using NHS costs) could potentially underestimate these treatment costs, particularly for non-operative treatment. Costs incurred following hospital discharge in the primary care setting were minimal, and limited family borne costs were reported by parents/carers. While both HRQoL instruments performed relatively well, our results highlight the problem of ceiling effect and the importance of the timing of data collection and the duration of the analysis in any future assessment using QALYs and CUA.

conclusionsWe highlighted the importance of obtaining accurate individual-patient cost data when conducting economic evaluations. Our results suggest that timing of data collection and duration of the assessment are important considerations when evaluating cost-effectiveness and reporting cost per QALY. CLINICAL

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.

Indexed as

AppendicitisChildCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeCosting methodologyHospital administrative dataHRQoL and QALYMicro-costingNHS Reference costsPatient-Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS)

Identifiers

PMID37286916
PMCPMC10473981
OpenAlexW4379740545

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.