Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHernández, Rodolfo Andrésen
dc.contributor.authorDe Verteuil, Robynen
dc.contributor.authorFraser, Cynthia Maryen
dc.contributor.authorVale, Luke Daviden
dc.contributor.authorAberdeen Health Technology Assessment Groupen
dc.date.accessioned2009-11-30T09:47:43Z
dc.date.available2009-11-30T09:47:43Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.citationHernandez, R.A., de Verteuil, R.M., Fraser, C.M., and Vale, L.D., (2008) Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease, 10(9), pp.859-868.en
dc.identifier.issn1462-8910
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 392060en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2164/301
dc.description.abstractObjective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.en
dc.description.sponsorshipDepartment of Health, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directoratesen
dc.format.extent169240 bytes
dc.format.extent9 p.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.comen
dc.subjecteconomic evaluationen
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen
dc.subjectcost effectivenessen
dc.subjectlaparoscopic surgeryen
dc.subjectcolorectal canceren
dc.subject.lccRC Internal medicineen
dc.titleSystematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal canceren
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.typeTexten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciencesen
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionAuthor versionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record