ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2025
A multicenter micro-costing analysis of flexible cystoscopic procedures in Korea.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2025. 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.
- Clinical application of the F21 multipurpose cystoscope with continuous irrigation capability.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Antibiotic prophylaxis in ambulatory cystoscopy: Challenging its role even in high-risk patients-prospective observational study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to develop and implement an economic evaluation using a micro-costing approach to provide a precise and transparent analysis of the direct costs of cystoscopic procedures in Korean hospitals. The study seeks to identify key cost components and evaluate whether current reimbursement rates accurately reflect these direct costs. MATERIALS AND
methodsSignificant variations in cost items were identified across different studies. An economic evaluation was conducted using a micro-costing methodology for the cost analysis of cystoscopic procedures, developed through literature review, data collection from studies, and expert consultations.
resultsGangnam Severance Hospital (GSH) performed 2,188 cystoscopic procedures, including 1,847 cystoscopies and 341 JJ stent removals, with average costs of $100.8 and $110.6, respectively. At National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital (NHIMC), 1,463 procedures were performed, including 1,167 cystoscopies and 296 JJ stent removals, with average costs of $119.2 and $125.3. Cystoscopy costs at GSH were driven by reprocessing ($45.8, 45.4%) and equipment ($33.1, 32.9%), while NHIMC's were $52.5 (44.0%) for equipment and $48.7 (40.8%) for reprocessing. Both hospitals incurred financial losses, with NHIS (National Health Insurance Service) covering only about 71.7% and 60.6% of costs for cystoscopy, and 71.0% and 62.7% for JJ stent removal.
conclusionsThe significant discrepancy between HIRA (Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service)'s estimated costs and those identified here suggests that current fees for cystoscopic procedures may be underestimated and require reassessment. Given the results, reevaluating these rates is essential to ensure fair compensation for healthcare providers and to deliver optimal patient care.
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.