Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: <i>A Randomized Clinical Trial</i>

Barkun, Alan N.; Barkun, Jeffrey; Sampalis, John S.; Jaime, J.; Fried, Gerald M.; Meakins, Johnathan L.; Joseph, Lawrence; Goresky, Carl A.

doi:10.1017/s0266462300010060

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the authors' major finding-that quality of life is improved by laparoscopic cholecystectomy-is, in fact, nothing new. This has already been shown by several authors [1,7,9], and, in my opinion, these results should have been referenced. Second, the hypothesis that quality of life may also benefit from open cholecystectomy has also been tested.…”

supporting

confidence: 72%

Comment on gastrointestinal quality of life in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic cholelithiasis before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

2003

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 72%

Comment on gastrointestinal quality of life in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic cholelithiasis before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

2003

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For nonfatal conditions however, alternatives can be applied, such as satisfaction scores, OHIP indices, or QAPYs. 50,51 However, these differing evaluation methods cannot be compared to QALYs. 52 With respect to satisfaction questionnaires, current score lists vary in scoring methodologies: some perform a VAS score, usually on a scale of 0-10 or 0-100, while others use a Likert scale to display their results.…”

Section: Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence on the added value of implant‐supported overdentures? A review

Winkel

Heijens

Listl

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implant‐supported overdentures (IODs) have been reported to increase patients' oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in comparison with conventional dentures (CDs); however, the conclusiveness of evidence on the clinical effectiveness and value for money of IODs versus CDs remains unclear. Purpose To review how the added value of IODs is demonstrated in the literature. Materials and methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched for randomized control trials, controlled clinical trials, and prospective cohort studies containing evaluations of the economic and health benefits and costs of IODs. Information about the clinical effectiveness, such as magnitude of bite forces or chewing efficacy, OHRQoL, costs, and cost‐effectiveness of IODs, was extracted. Results A total of 17 articles were included, reporting 15 economic evaluations: 11 cost‐utility analyses (CUAs), 2 of which were combined with a cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA), and 2 cost–benefit analyses (CBAs). Seven CUAs used the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire while four used satisfaction questionnaires to assess the OHRQoL. One study applied quality‐adjusted prosthesis years (QAPYs) for this purpose. The CBAs expressed both the beneficial outcome and the costs of the IOD in monetary terms. The included studies employed a large variety of economic evaluation methods, which limited cross‐study comparability. Conclusions On the basis of existing economic evaluations, IODs have frequently been suggested to be a cost‐efficient treatment alternative to CDs; however, the comparability between the various economic evaluation studies was limited due to the different outcome measures used. In addition, it remains unclear whether the additional health benefits of IODs outweigh the higher costs. This is largely dependent on the decision maker's valuation of oral health outcomes. Future research is encouraged to further elucidate patient willingness to pay for IODs and the societal return on investing in IODs more generally.

show abstract

“…Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a faster recovery and discharge of patients. Whilst the costs for surgery alone are higher for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, some authors argue that the overall costs to the health care and economic systems are reduced by shorter clinic stays that lead in many cases to patients returning back to work faster [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Regarding patient preferences, there is no evidence in the literature that patients ask their surgeon for laparoscopic surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Medicine in Daily Surgical Decision Making: A Survey-Based Comparison between the UK and Germany

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons. Results: A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany). Conclusion: The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future.

show abstract

Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Cited by 17 publications

References 86 publications

Comment on gastrointestinal quality of life in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic cholelithiasis before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Comment on gastrointestinal quality of life in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic cholelithiasis before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

What is the evidence on the added value of implant‐supported overdentures? A review

Evidence-Based Medicine in Daily Surgical Decision Making: A Survey-Based Comparison between the UK and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About