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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |