Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359700›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Use of -125 mm Hg Closed-incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.

Joshua A Bloom, Carly Wareham, Elsa Chahine, Dhruv Singhal, Samuel J Lin, Bernard T Lee, Salvatore Nardello, Christopher Homsy, Sarah M Persing, Abhishek Chatterjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Joshua A BloomFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Carly WarehamDepartment of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Elsa ChahineDepartment of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Dhruv SinghalFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Samuel J LinFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Bernard T LeeFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Salvatore NardelloDivision of Surgical Oncology and Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Christopher HomsyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Sarah M PersingDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Abhishek ChatterjeeDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Mass.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Closed-incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) decreases the rate of wound complications in oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) but at a fiscal cost. Our aim was to examine the cost-utility of ciNPT in OBS. Methods: A literature review was performed to obtain the probabilities and outcomes for the treatment of unilateral breast cancer with OBS with ciNPT versus without. Reported utility scores in the literature were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each health state. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback analysis to determine the more cost-effective strategy. An incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: OBS with ciNPT is associated with a higher clinical effectiveness (QALY) of 33.43 compared to without (33.42), and relative cost increase of $667.89. The resulting incremental cost-utility ratio of $57432.93/QALY favored ciNPT. In one-way sensitivity analysis, ciNPT was the more cost-effective strategy if the cost of ciNPT was less than $1347.02 or if the probability of wound dehiscence without was greater than 8.2%. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 75.39% that surgery with ciNPT is more cost effective. Conclusion: Despite the added cost, surgery with ciNPT is cost-effective. This finding is a direct result of decreased overall wound complications with ciNPT.

Identifiers

PMID39359700
PMCPMC11444648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.