Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39498270›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024

True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department.

Yi Xiang Tay, Marcus Eh Ong, Shane J Foley, Robert Chun Chen, Lai Peng Chan, Ronan Killeen, May San Mak, Jonathan P McNulty, Kularatna Sanjeewa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2024. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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.

Yi Xiang TayRadiography Department, Allied Health Division, Singapore General Hospital,Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore.
Marcus Eh OngDuke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore.
Shane J FoleyRadiography and Diagnostic Imaging, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Robert Chun ChenDuke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore.
Lai Peng ChanDuke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore.
Ronan KilleenSt Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
May San MakDuke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore.
Jonathan P McNultyRadiography and Diagnostic Imaging, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Kularatna SanjeewaDuke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: There is a lack of clear and consistent cost reporting for cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology. Estimates are often obtained using costing derived from hospital charge records. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of hospital charge records compared to a Singapore hospital's true diagnostic imaging costs. Methods: A seven-step process involving a bottom-up micro-costing approach was devised and followed to calculate the cost of imaging using actual data from a clinical setting. We retrieved electronic data from a random sample of 96 emergency department patients who had CT brain, CT and X-ray cervical spine, and X-ray lumbar spine performed to calculate the parameters required for cost estimation. We adjusted imaging duration and number of performing personnel to account for variations. Results: Our approach determined the average cost for the following imaging procedures: CT brain (€154.00), CT and X-ray cervical spine (€177.14 and €68.22), and X-ray lumbar spine (€79.85). We found that the true cost of both conventional radiography procedures was marginally higher than the subsidized patient charge, and all costs were slightly lower than the private patient charge except for X-ray lumbar spine (€73.49 vs.€79.85). We identified larger differences in cost for both CT procedures and smaller differences in cost for conventional radiography procedures, depending on the patient's private or subsidized status. For private status, the differences were: CT brain (Min: €194.20; Max: €264.40), CT cervical spine (Min: €219.54; Max: €399.05), X-ray cervical spine (Min: €5.27; Max: €61.94), and X-ray lumbar spine (Min: €6.36; Max: €108.04), while for subsidized status, the differences were: CT brain (Min: €7.56; Max: €62.64), CT cervical spine (Min: €47.02; Max: €132.49), X-ray cervical spine (Min: €15.88; Max: €103.44), and X-ray lumbar spine (Min: €13.66; Max: €149.44). Considering examination duration and the number of personnel engaged in a procedure, there were significant variations in the minimum, average, and maximum imaging costs. Conclusion: There is a modest gap between hospital charges and actual costs, and we must therefore exercise caution and recognize the limitations of utilizing hospital charge records as absolute metrics for cost-effectiveness analysis

Indexed as

CostCost-effectiveness analysisCost savingsDiagnostic imagingEmergency Department

Identifiers

PMID39498270
PMCPMC11533038

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.