ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Surgical correction of the genital hiatus at the time of sacrocolpopexy - a 7-year Markov analysis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of concurrent posterior repair performed at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy over a 7-year time period. We hypothesize it is not cost-effective to perform a posterior colporrhaphy.
methodsWe used TreeAge Pro® to construct a decision model with Markov modeling to compare sacrocolpopexy with and without concurrent posterior repair (SCP and SCP+PR) over a time horizon of 7 years. Outcomes included probability and costs associated with prolapse recurrence, prolapse retreatment, and complications including rectal injury, rectovaginal hematoma requiring reoperation, and postoperative dyspareunia. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated as ∆ costs /∆ effectiveness and the willingness to pay (WTP) was set at $100,000/QALY.
resultsOur model showed that SCP was the dominant strategy, with lower costs (-$ 2681.06) and higher effectiveness (+0.10) compared to SCP+PR over the 7-year period. In two-way sensitivity analyses, we varied the probability of prolapse recurrence after both strategies. Our conclusions would only change if the probability of recurrence after SCP was at least 29.7% higher than after SCP+PR. When varying the probabilities of dyspareunia for both strategies, SCP+PR only became the dominant strategy if the probability of dyspareunia for SCP+PR was lower than the rate of SCP alone.
conclusionsIn this 7-year Markov cost-effectiveness analysis, SCP without concurrent PR was the dominant strategy. SCP+PR costs more with lower effectiveness than SCP alone, due to higher surgical cost of SCP+PR and higher probability of dyspareunia after SCP+PR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.