ArticleBMJ open2024
Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a model-based economic evaluation in China.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Balancing Clinical Benefit, Cost-Effectiveness, and Accessibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The mediating pathways of frailty on healthcare costs and length of stay in older patients with colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comment on 'Impact of non-surgical OR time on efficiency and costs with Hugo™ RAS': methodological and operational considerations.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
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
objectivesThe aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in early-stage cervical cancer (ECC).
designModel-based cost-effectiveness analysis.
settingBased on long-term survival data, a three-state Markov model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2022 to simulate the possible recurrence of ECC. Data on clinical efficacy and costs were derived from published literature and local databases.
participantsA hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO 2009 stages<IIB) who underwent RRH or LRH management. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study endpoints were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (in Chinese renminbi (RMB) adjusted to 2023-year values using the Consumer Price Index) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay threshold of 268 074 RMB per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.
resultsRobotic group gained more 4.84 QALYs than the laparoscopic group, but total costs for robotic strategy are substantially higher, with the incremental costs of 1 031 108 RMB. The ICER of robotic strategy is 213 054 RMB per QALY. Outcomes were robust in most one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsRobotic strategy is on the efficient frontier but incurs substantial initial cost. Our findings indicated that this strategy is a cost-effective treatment option for ECC patients if assessed over a time horizon of patients' lifetime. This study underscores the need for long-term clinical trials in early-stage cervical cancer patients with follow-up data that capture financial and quality-of-life end points.
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.