Cargando…

Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence

BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women are commonly employed following the failure of minimally invasive therapies. Due to the limited information available on the relative cost-effectiveness of available surgeries for treating SUI, a de no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Javanbakht, Mehdi, Moloney, Eoin, Brazzelli, Miriam, Wallace, Sheila, Omar, Muhammad Imran, Monga, Ash, Saraswat, Lucky, Mackie, Phil, Imamura, Mari, Hudson, Jemma, Shimonovich, Michal, MacLennan, Graeme, Vale, Luke, Craig, Dawn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7169003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32312310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01352-3
_version_ 1783523761389043712
author Javanbakht, Mehdi
Moloney, Eoin
Brazzelli, Miriam
Wallace, Sheila
Omar, Muhammad Imran
Monga, Ash
Saraswat, Lucky
Mackie, Phil
Imamura, Mari
Hudson, Jemma
Shimonovich, Michal
MacLennan, Graeme
Vale, Luke
Craig, Dawn
author_facet Javanbakht, Mehdi
Moloney, Eoin
Brazzelli, Miriam
Wallace, Sheila
Omar, Muhammad Imran
Monga, Ash
Saraswat, Lucky
Mackie, Phil
Imamura, Mari
Hudson, Jemma
Shimonovich, Michal
MacLennan, Graeme
Vale, Luke
Craig, Dawn
author_sort Javanbakht, Mehdi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women are commonly employed following the failure of minimally invasive therapies. Due to the limited information available on the relative cost-effectiveness of available surgeries for treating SUI, a de novo economic analysis was conducted to assess costs and effects of all relevant surgeries. To inform the economic analysis, the objective of this review was to identify and assess the quality of existing economic evaluation studies on different surgical interventions for the treatment of SUI in women. METHODS: The following databases were searched during the review process: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), MEDLINE In-Process, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and Health Management Information Consortium and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA registry). The key criteria for inclusion were that the study population included women with SUI and that the surgical interventions considered were utilised as either a primary or a follow-up surgery. The review included only full economic evaluations. Studies were quality assessed using the Drummond checklist for economic evaluations. No quantitative synthesis of the results by meta-analysis was conducted due to the high methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-six economic evaluations were included, of which 13 were model-based analyses. Surgical treatments assessed most frequently were mid-urethral slings and open and laparoscopic colposuspension. There were some differences in the methodological approaches taken, including differences in type of economic analysis, perspective, time horizon, types of resource use, and costs and outcomes that were included in the analysis. The majority of studies conducted a cost-utility analysis from a health system perspective and applied a time horizon of between 1 and 5 years. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that single-incision mini-sling and mid-urethral slings are among the most cost-effective options. CONCLUSIONS: The review has shown that methods used for the economic evaluation of surgical treatments for SUI vary widely in terms of study design, analysis type, compared alternatives, time horizon, costing methodologies and effect outcomes. Future economic evaluation studies on surgical treatments for SUI may be improved by the application of available guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registered in PROSPERO in 2016, CRD42016049339
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7169003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71690032020-04-23 Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence Javanbakht, Mehdi Moloney, Eoin Brazzelli, Miriam Wallace, Sheila Omar, Muhammad Imran Monga, Ash Saraswat, Lucky Mackie, Phil Imamura, Mari Hudson, Jemma Shimonovich, Michal MacLennan, Graeme Vale, Luke Craig, Dawn Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women are commonly employed following the failure of minimally invasive therapies. Due to the limited information available on the relative cost-effectiveness of available surgeries for treating SUI, a de novo economic analysis was conducted to assess costs and effects of all relevant surgeries. To inform the economic analysis, the objective of this review was to identify and assess the quality of existing economic evaluation studies on different surgical interventions for the treatment of SUI in women. METHODS: The following databases were searched during the review process: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), MEDLINE In-Process, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and Health Management Information Consortium and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA registry). The key criteria for inclusion were that the study population included women with SUI and that the surgical interventions considered were utilised as either a primary or a follow-up surgery. The review included only full economic evaluations. Studies were quality assessed using the Drummond checklist for economic evaluations. No quantitative synthesis of the results by meta-analysis was conducted due to the high methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-six economic evaluations were included, of which 13 were model-based analyses. Surgical treatments assessed most frequently were mid-urethral slings and open and laparoscopic colposuspension. There were some differences in the methodological approaches taken, including differences in type of economic analysis, perspective, time horizon, types of resource use, and costs and outcomes that were included in the analysis. The majority of studies conducted a cost-utility analysis from a health system perspective and applied a time horizon of between 1 and 5 years. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that single-incision mini-sling and mid-urethral slings are among the most cost-effective options. CONCLUSIONS: The review has shown that methods used for the economic evaluation of surgical treatments for SUI vary widely in terms of study design, analysis type, compared alternatives, time horizon, costing methodologies and effect outcomes. Future economic evaluation studies on surgical treatments for SUI may be improved by the application of available guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registered in PROSPERO in 2016, CRD42016049339 BioMed Central 2020-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7169003/ /pubmed/32312310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01352-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Javanbakht, Mehdi
Moloney, Eoin
Brazzelli, Miriam
Wallace, Sheila
Omar, Muhammad Imran
Monga, Ash
Saraswat, Lucky
Mackie, Phil
Imamura, Mari
Hudson, Jemma
Shimonovich, Michal
MacLennan, Graeme
Vale, Luke
Craig, Dawn
Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title_full Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title_fullStr Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title_full_unstemmed Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title_short Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
title_sort surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7169003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32312310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01352-3
work_keys_str_mv AT javanbakhtmehdi surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT moloneyeoin surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT brazzellimiriam surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT wallacesheila surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT omarmuhammadimran surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT mongaash surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT saraswatlucky surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT mackiephil surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT imamuramari surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT hudsonjemma surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT shimonovichmichal surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT maclennangraeme surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT valeluke surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence
AT craigdawn surgicaltreatmentsforwomenwithstressurinaryincontinenceasystematicreviewofeconomicevidence