ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Cost-Benefit Analysis of in vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy for Melanoma Diagnosis in a Real-World Clinical Setting.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Line-Field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography of Basal Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Correlation with Histopathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In a recent prospective, multicenter, two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), we demonstrated that adjunctive reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) in routine clinical practice provides clinical benefits, including safe melanoma detection and a 43.3% reduction in the number needed to excise (NNE). Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted based on NNEs for standard care (5.3) and adjunctive RCM (3.0). Cost data were supplied by one center, applying a micro-costing approach from the hospital's perspective. Costs were calculated for dermatology exams, excisions, medications, histopathology, and follow-up. The outcomes were extrapolated to provincial and national settings to assess the economic benefits of RCM. Results: The cost per patient for standard care was €143.63, compared to €114.74 for adjunctive RCM. The cost per melanoma excised with standard care (NNE 5.3) was €904.87, almost twice the cost for RCM (€458.96). Annual regional and national costs for standard care were €864,150.85 and €11,491,849.00, respectively, while RCM reduced these to €438,306.80 and €5,828,792.00. Estimated annual savings with adjunctive RCM were €425,844.05 regionally and €5,663,057.00 nationally. The cost-benefit ratio for RCM was 3.89, meaning that for every €1 spent on RCM, there is a benefit of €3.89. Conclusion: In real-world clinical practice, adjunctive RCM offers significant economic advantages at local, regional, and national levels while maintaining patient safety and reducing unnecessary surgical procedures.
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.