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. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias.
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. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias.
Authors: Maribel Botana-Rial; Virginia Leiro-Fernández; Manuel Núñez-Delgado; Maximiliano Álvarez-Fernández; Susana Otero-Fernández; Helena Bello-Rodríguez; Carlos Vilariño-Pombo; Alberto Fernández-Villar Journal: Respiration Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Javier Flandes; Luis Fernando Giraldo-Cadavid; Javier Alfayate; Iker Fernández-Navamuel; Carlos Agusti; Carmen M Lucena; Antoni Rosell; Felipe Andreo; Carmen Centeno; Carmen Montero; Iria Vidal; Lucía García-Alfonso; Antonio Bango; Miguel Ariza; Rocío Gallego; Marta Orta; Salvador Bello; Elisa Mincholé; Alfons Torrego; Virginia Pajares; Héctor González; Aurelio Luis Wangüemert; Julio Pérez-Izquierdo; Carlos Disdier; Blanca de Vega Sanchez; Rosa Cordovilla; Juan Cascón; Antonio Cruz; J Javier García-López; Luis Puente; Paola Benedetti; Cristina L García-Gallo; Gema Díaz Nuevo; Silvia Aguado; Concepción Partida; Prudencio Díaz-Agero; Estefanía Luque Crespo; María Pavón; Francisco Páez; Enrique Cases; Raquel Martínez; Andrés Briones; Cleofe Fernández; Concepción Martín Serrano; Ana Maria Uribe-Hernández; Jose Robles Journal: Respir Res Date: 2020-12-02
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-29