A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

103 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Objectives: The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions: The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer21
TidsskriftHealth Economics Review
Vol/bind8
Antal sider9
ISSN2191-1991
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 7. sep. 2018

Fingeraftryk

Robotics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Databases
Health Care Sector
Health Services Needs and Demand
Health
Checklist
Gynecology
PubMed
Maintenance
Guidelines

Citer dette

@article{58e0c7f288414550b3b96cce63ea6a95,
title = "A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies",
abstract = "Objectives: The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50{\%}. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions: The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.",
keywords = "Cost analysis, Economics, Gynecologic surgery, Robot-assisted laparoscopy",
author = "Malene Korsholm and Jan S{\o}rensen and Ole Mogensen and Chunsen Wu and Karlsen, {Kamilla Kanneg{\aa}rd} and Jensen, {Pernille Tine}",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "Health Economics Review",
issn = "2191-1991",
publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies

AU - Korsholm, Malene

AU - Sørensen, Jan

AU - Mogensen, Ole

AU - Wu, Chunsen

AU - Karlsen, Kamilla Kannegård

AU - Jensen, Pernille Tine

PY - 2018/9/7

Y1 - 2018/9/7

N2 - Objectives: The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions: The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.

AB - Objectives: The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions: The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.

KW - Cost analysis

KW - Economics

KW - Gynecologic surgery

KW - Robot-assisted laparoscopy

U2 - 10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5

DO - 10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5

M3 - Review

VL - 8

JO - Health Economics Review

JF - Health Economics Review

SN - 2191-1991

M1 - 21

ER -