Literature DB >> 23508049

Systematic review of economic evaluations in plastic surgery.

Natalia I Ziolkowski1, Sophocles H Voineskos, Teegan A Ignacy, Achilleas Thoma.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations are quantitative methods comparing alternative interventions using cost data and expected outcomes. They are used to recommend/dissuade adoption of new surgical interventions and compare different clinical pathways, settings (inpatient/outpatient), or time horizons to determine which procedure may be more cost-effective. The objective of this systematic review was to describe all published English economic evaluations related to a plastic surgery domain.
METHODS: A comprehensive English literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluations Database, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete databases was conducted (January 1, 1986, to June 15, 2012). Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers using predefined data fields and selected using specific inclusion criteria. Extracted information included country of origin, journal, and date of publication. Domain of plastic surgery and type of economic evaluation were ascertained.
RESULTS: Ninety-five articles were included in the final analysis, with cost analysis being the most common economic evaluation (82 percent). Full economic evaluations represented 18 percent. General cutaneous disorders/burns (24 percent), breast surgery (20 percent), and "multiple" (15 percent) were the top domains studied. Authors were predominantly based in the United States (56 percent) and published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (22 percent), with a significant proportion (40 percent) published in the last 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Partial economic assessments (cost analyses) with limited benefit represent the majority of economic evaluations in plastic surgery. This suggests an urgent need to alert plastic surgeons to the advantages of full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses) and the need to perform such rigorous analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23508049     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f8f8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

Review 1.  Global systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of indigenous health interventions.

Authors:  Blake J Angell; Janani Muhunthan; Michelle Irving; Sandra Eades; Stephen Jan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Cost Analysis of an Office-based Surgical Suite.

Authors:  Gabrielle LaBove; Steven P Davison
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-07-19

3.  Cost-Utility Analysis: Sartorius Flap versus Negative Pressure Therapy for Infected Vascular Groin Graft Managment.

Authors:  Abhishek Chatterjee; David Macarios; Leah Griffin; Tomasz Kosowski; Bryan J Pyfer; Anaeze C Offodile; Daniel Driscoll; Sirish Maddali; John Attwood
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-12-09

4.  A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature.

Authors:  Adrienne N Christopher; Martin P Morris; Viren Patel; Kevin Klifto; John P Fischer
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-11-29

5.  Comparing the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-Expander Implant: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Achilles Thoma; Ronen Avram; Arianna Dal Cin; Jessica Murphy; Eric Duku; Feng Xie
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-04-11

6.  Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-expander Implant following Mastectomy.

Authors:  Achilles Thoma; Ronen Avram; Arianna Dal Cin; Jessica Murphy; Eric Duku; Feng Xie
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-04-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.