Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40374189›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2025

Single-use versus multiple-use accessories in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Mandana Zanganeh, Yufei Jiang, Anna Brown, Yen-Fu Chen, Ramesh P Arasaradnam, Lazaros Andronis, SUMU-Endo project group, SUMU Endo project group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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

8 authors.

Mandana ZanganehCentre for Health Economics, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK mandana.zanganeh@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3934-6044
Yufei JiangCentre for Health Economics, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5389-7971
Anna BrownWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4541-6232
Yen-Fu ChenWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9446-2761
Ramesh P ArasaradnamWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2231-3062
Lazaros AndronisCentre for Health Economics, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7998-7431
SUMU-Endo project group
SUMU Endo project group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn many countries, single-use endoscopy accessories such as forceps have almost replaced their reusable counterparts. We reviewed the evidence on the broader economic cost and environmental impacts associated with single-use and multiple-use accessories for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes.

designSystematic review following the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 September 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included published economic evaluations on single-use and reusable GI endoscope accessories which were written in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and quality-assessed identified studies according to the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

resultsSeven economic analyses were included: all were cost analyses. Three studies were from the USA, three from Europe and one from Korea. Patients in these studies underwent GI endoscopy (n=3), colonoscopy (n=2), gastroscopy (n=1) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n=1). All studies compared single-use with reusable accessories, of which six were forceps. Reprocessing and purchase costs were included in all studies, repair costs were included in three studies, and environmental impact was only considered in one study. Most studies (n=5) reported a higher cost per procedure associated with single-use accessories.

conclusionsApart from two studies, all studies indicated that the cost per procedure was greater using single-use accessories/forceps. Future economic evaluations of single versus reusable accessories/forceps should include costs and also consequences of health and beyond, especially environmental impact.

Indexed as

Disposable EquipmentEndoscopes, GastrointestinalEndoscopy, GastrointestinalCost-Benefit AnalysisEquipment ReuseHumansCOST-EFFECTIVENESSENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHGASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPYHEALTH ECONOMICS

Identifiers

PMID40374189
PMCPMC12083358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.