ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Is Preoperative Type and Screen High-value Care? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Performing Preoperative Type and Screen Prior to Urogynecological Surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thoracic Surgeons' Practice Patterns and Attitudes Toward Preoperative Testing for Blood Resource Use: An International Survey.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRoutine preoperative type and screen (T&S) is often ordered prior to urogynecological surgery but is rarely used. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of routine preoperative T&S and determine transfusion and transfusion reaction rates that make universal preoperative T&S cost effective.
methodsA decision tree model from the health care sector perspective compared costs (2020 US dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) of universal preoperative T&S (cross-matched blood) vs no T&S (O negative blood). Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Input parameters included transfusion rates, transfusion reaction incidence, transfusion reaction severity rates, and costs of management. The base case included a transfusion probability of 1.26%; a transfusion reaction probability of 0.0013% with or 0.4% without T&S; and with a transfusion reaction, a 50% probability of inpatient management and 0.0042 annual disutility. Costs were estimated from Medicare national reimbursement schedules. The time horizon was surgery/admission. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe base case and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that routine preoperative T&S is not cost effective, with an ICER of $63,721,632/QALY. The optimal strategy did not change when base case cost, transfusion probability, or transfusion reaction disutility were varied. Threshold analysis revealed that if transfusion reaction probability without T&S is >12%, routine T&S becomes cost effective. Scenarios identified as cost effective in the threshold and sensitivity analyses fell outside reported rates for urogynecological surgery.
conclusionsWithin broad ranges, preoperative T&S is not cost effective, which supports re-evaluating routine T&S prior to urogynecological surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38240801What 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.