OBJECTIVE: The aim was to carry out a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical and surgical treatment of miscarriage using quantitative and qualitative indicators. DESIGN: A prospective study where the data of the clinical course of the treatment and the patients; experiences (pain and satisfaction) were collected from a previous randomised study. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. POPULATION: Ninety-eight eligible women with a diagnosed miscarriage. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by using institutional prices (provider's aspect) of the medical care and the number of patients who experienced pain, dissatisfaction or unsuccessful treatment while treated for the miscarriage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary (uncomplicated treatment) and secondary (complications and other unplanned events) costs of the treatments. RESULTS: Primary costs of the surgical treatment were higher, but the more frequent unplanned events and complications in the medical group brought the costs to the same level. In the medical group, based on the ICER, 12 patients more experienced pain, 7 patients more were dissatisfied with the treatment and 5 patients more had unsuccessful treatment compared with surgically treated patients. In theory, these negative outcomes could have been avoided by investing euro1688 more in the surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Medical treatment of miscarriage was not more cost-effective, when the adverse events were considered. As neither of these two methods was economically superior, the treatment choice should be made on an individual basis by respecting the patient's choice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to carry out a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical and surgical treatment of miscarriage using quantitative and qualitative indicators. DESIGN: A prospective study where the data of the clinical course of the treatment and the patients; experiences (pain and satisfaction) were collected from a previous randomised study. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. POPULATION: Ninety-eight eligible women with a diagnosed miscarriage. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by using institutional prices (provider's aspect) of the medical care and the number of patients who experienced pain, dissatisfaction or unsuccessful treatment while treated for the miscarriage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary (uncomplicated treatment) and secondary (complications and other unplanned events) costs of the treatments. RESULTS: Primary costs of the surgical treatment were higher, but the more frequent unplanned events and complications in the medical group brought the costs to the same level. In the medical group, based on the ICER, 12 patients more experienced pain, 7 patients more were dissatisfied with the treatment and 5 patients more had unsuccessful treatment compared with surgically treated patients. In theory, these negative outcomes could have been avoided by investing euro1688 more in the surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Medical treatment of miscarriage was not more cost-effective, when the adverse events were considered. As neither of these two methods was economically superior, the treatment choice should be made on an individual basis by respecting the patient's choice.
Authors: Marike Lemmers; Marianne Ac Verschoor; Bobae Veronica Kim; Martha Hickey; Juan C Vazquez; Ben Willem J Mol; James P Neilson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-17
Authors: Marianne A C Verschoor; Marike Lemmers; Malu Z Wekker; Judith A F Huirne; Mariëtte Goddijn; Ben Willem J Mol; Willem M Ankum Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2014-11-04
Authors: Marianne A C Verschoor; Marike Lemmers; Patrick M Bossuyt; Giuseppe C M Graziosi; Petra J Hajenius; Dave J Hendriks; Marcel A H van Hooff; Hannah S van Meurs; Brent C Opmeer; Maurits W van Tulder; Liesanne Bouwma; Ruby Catshoek; Peggy Geomini; Ellen R Klinkert; Josje Langenveld; Theodoor E Nieboer; J Marinus van der Ploeg; Celine M Radder; Taeke Spinder; Lucy F van der Voet; Ben Willem J Mol; Judith A F Huirne; Willem M Ankum Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Jay Ghosh; Argyro Papadopoulou; Adam J Devall; Hannah C Jeffery; Leanne E Beeson; Vivian Do; Malcolm J Price; Aurelio Tobias; Özge Tunçalp; Antonella Lavelanet; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Arri Coomarasamy; Ioannis D Gallos Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Susanne Sjöström; Helena Kopp Kallner; Emilia Simeonova; Andreas Madestam; Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Judith A F Huirne; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.981