Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound use by on-call registrars in an acute gynaecology setting

El-Sayed, Mohsen; Mohamed, Sahar; Jones, Michael H.

doi:10.3109/01443615.2011.614973

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample sizes ranged from 35 [ 55 ] to 9996 participants [ 71 ] and the duration of follow-up ranged from 24 hours [ 66 ] to 36 months [ 47 ]. The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (66%; n = 27) [ 35 , 37 , 39 – 41 , 43 , 47 , 50 – 52 , 57 – 59 , 61 – 65 , 67 – 70 , 74 – 76 , 78 , 79 ] and North America (29%; n = 12) [ 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 – 46 , 48 , 49 , 53 , 56 , 60 , 66 ]. Two (4%) studies [ 54 , 71 ] were conducted over multiple countries and one (2%) study [ 55 ] did not report the country where the study was conducted, but the authors’ affiliation was from the Republic of Ireland.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Alili¹,

Dongen²,

Huirne

et al. 2017

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesThe aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.Data Sources and Selection CriteriaA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.Data Collection and AnalysisReporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.ResultsThe electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.LimitationsThe focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.Conclusions and Implications of Key FindingsThe reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0531-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Alili¹,

Dongen²,

Huirne

et al. 2017

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Use of ultrasound in emergency gynaecology

Wattar

Frank

Fage

et al. 2014

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasound scan (USS) is an important tool for assessing and diagnosing early pregnancy and gynaecological emergencies. Providing an ultrasound scanning service at all hours would enable and ease prompt diagnosis and appropriate management. It would also help hospitals in reducing costs secondary to unnecessary admissions due to lack of ultrasound out of hours. We have conducted a retrospective observational study that looked into the out of hours admissions to a busy early pregnancy unit in a general district hospital, over a 3-month period. Our results highlight the important role and possible benefits of using ultrasound out of hours and prove it is a cost-effective approach. However, providing ultrasound scanning out of hours is affected by limitations of staff and resources at each unit. This could be avoided by following a multidisciplinary approach in acute services and providing more training for medical staff in ultrasound scanning.

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound use by on-call registrars in an acute gynaecology setting

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Use of ultrasound in emergency gynaecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About