ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Comparison of Costs, Re-Intervention Rates, and Length of Hospital Stay for Three Uterus Sparing Interventions for Uterine Fibroids: A 2-Year Retrospective Claims Analysis.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe two-year post-operative outcomes, and healthcare utilization of three uterus-sparing interventions used to treat women with intramural and/or subserosal uterine fibroids. Subjects and Methods: This was a post-market, randomized, prospective, multi-center, longitudinal, interventional, and comparative clinical study to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of LAP-RFA vs the standard uterine conserving technologies (myomectomy and UAE) for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids in women who desire uterine conservation. For this RCT study, 54 subjects were randomized on a 1:1 ratio across the three procedures and followed out to two years. Their results were compared to retrospective US insurance claims from the IBM MarketScan Results: Mean ambulatory surgical center costs and the mean out-patient hospital costs were lowest for LAP-RFA ($13,134 and $14,428) and highest for UAE ($28,214 and $19,131). The total two-year re-intervention rate of any subsequent procedure (AM, LM, LAP-RFA, or UAE) was lowest in AM group (0%) followed by LM (4.2%), LAP-RFA (11%), and UAE (33%). Mean peri-operative reintervention costs and the mean reintervention total costs were $2429 and $5939 for LAP-RFA, $2122 and $8368 for LM, $4410 and $11,942 for AM, and $8113 and $46,692 for UAE subjects. In the RCT study, the average length of hospital stay was significantly less for the LAP-RFA group subjects (8.2 hours) in contrast to both the laparoscopic myomectomy group subjects (16.0 hours) and the abdominal myomectomy group subjects (33.6 hours). Despite the small numbers, two-year reintervention rates followed a similar pattern as the IBM MarketScan data. Conclusion: In comparing these three non-invasive approaches, LAP-RFA was associated with the lowest peri-operative cost, and UAE was associated with the highest peri-operative cost. Further studies are needed to assess the cost, effectiveness, and subject satisfaction with each procedure.
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.