ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
A scoping review of the effectiveness, appropriateness and economic efficiency of the vacuum bell for pectus excavatum within the Swiss healthcare system.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pectus excavatum (PE) is the most common congenital deformity of the anterior chest wall, with treatment options ranging from physiotherapy and vacuum bell therapy (VBT) to surgical procedures such as the minimally invasive repair of PE (MIRPE). In Switzerland, only surgery is covered by the health insurance, creating access barriers for patients who may benefit from VBT. This review aims to assess the effectiveness, appropriateness, and economic efficiency of VBT and its potential role within the Swiss healthcare system. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Literature was identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library (2005-2024). Twenty-seven studies encompassing 2,271 patients were included based on relevance to the effectiveness, appropriateness, or cost-efficiency of VBT. Results: VBT appears to be a safe, effective, and cost-efficient alternative to MIRPE, particularly for younger patients with mild to moderate PE. Although high-quality randomized trials are lacking, the reviewed evidence supports VBT as a viable first-line option. Additionally, significant cost differences favor VBT, and its inclusion in reimbursement policies could enhance accessibility and reduce surgical burden. Conclusions: VBT offers clinically meaningful outcomes at substantially lower cost compared to MIRPE. Incorporating VBT into the Swiss reimbursement system could improve patient access, reduce health system expenditure, and reserve surgery for cases where conservative treatment is insufficient. However, these findings are based on the Swiss healthcare context and may not be directly generalizable to countries with different reimbursement frameworks.
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.