Early Cost–Utility Analysis Comparing the Sterile Single-Use Ambu &lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt; aScope  &lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt; Duodeno to Reusable Duodenoscopes

Travis, Helena Strømstad; Russell, Rasmus Vinther; Adamsen, Sven; Larsen, Nikolaj Birk; Larsen, S.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3732784

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies were identified, in MEDLINE, Embase ® and Google Scholar databases, from 1 January, 2009 until 6 November, 2020. The literature search was limited to studies published after 2009 because the first SFB was introduced only in 2009 [ 13 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Andersen

Travis

Dehlholm-Lambertsen³

et al. 2022

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) and SFBs. This meta-analysis aimed to compile the current published evidence to analyse the cost of different scenarios using RFBs and SFBs. Methods All published literature describing the cost of RFBs or SFBs was identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar, limited to those between 1 January, 2009 and 6 November, 2020. Included studies should report the total cost of RFBs. Continuous data were extracted for relevant outcomes and analysed using RStudio ® 4.0.3 as the standardised mean difference and standard error of the mean in a mixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed based on the reporting quality. Results In the systematic literature review, 342 studies were initially identified, and 11 were included in the final analysis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%