IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration versus mediastinoscopy for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: A systematic review of economic evaluation studies

Author

Listed:
  • João Pedro Steinhauser Motta
  • Ricardo E Steffen
  • Caroliny Samary Lobato
  • Vanessa Souza Mendonça
  • José Roberto Lapa e Silva

Abstract

Introduction: The emergence of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) changed the approach to staging lung cancer. As a new method being incorporated, the use of EBUS may lead to a shift in clinical and costs outcomes. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to gather information to better understand the economic impact of implementing EBUS. Methods: This review is reported according to the PRISMA statement and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019107901). Search keywords were elaborated considering descriptors of terms related to the disease (lung cancer / mediastinal staging of lung cancer) and the technologies of interest (EBUS and mediastinoscopy) combined with a specific economic filter. The literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane Library of Trials, Web of Science, Scopus and National Health System Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) of the Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Screening, selection of articles, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers. Results: Seven hundred and seventy publications were identified through the database searches. Eight articles were included in this review. All publications are full economic evaluation studies, one cost-effectiveness, three cost-utility, and four cost-minimization analyses. The costs of strategies using EBUS-TBNA were lower than the ones using mediastinoscopy in all studies analyzed. Two of the best quality scored studies demonstrate that the mediastinoscopy strategy is dominated by the EBUS-TBNA strategy. Conclusion: Information gathered in the eight studies of this systematic review suggest that EBUS is cost-effective compared to mediastinoscopy for mediastinal staging of lung cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • João Pedro Steinhauser Motta & Ricardo E Steffen & Caroliny Samary Lobato & Vanessa Souza Mendonça & José Roberto Lapa e Silva, 2020. "Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration versus mediastinoscopy for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: A systematic review of economic evaluation studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235479
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235479
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235479&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Boshen Jiao & Anirban Basu & Joshua Roth & M. Bender & Ilsa Rovira & Traci Clemons & Dalyna Quach & Scott Ramsey & Beth Devine, 2021. "The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(11), pages 1225-1241, November.
    4. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Holger Möller & Fiona Haigh & Rema Hayek & Lennert Veerman, 2020. "What Is the Best Practice Method for Quantifying the Health and Economic Benefits of Active Transport?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-16, August.
    6. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    7. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.
    8. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Donald Fejfar & Emily Pak & Michelle Cawley & Jamie Bartram, 2021. "Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Alexander V van Schoonhoven & Judith J Gout-Zwart & Marijke J S de Vries & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Evgeni Dvortsin & Pepijn Vemer & Job F M van Boven & Maarten J Postma, 2019. "Costs of clinical events in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in the Netherlands: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Joan Mendivil & Marilena Appierto & Susana Aceituno & Mercè Comas & Montserrat Rué, 2019. "Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Nikita M. John & Stuart J. Wright & Sean P. Gavan & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1123-1131, November.
    13. Christian Kromer & Daniel Celis & Diana Sonntag & Wiebke K Peitsch, 2018. "Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Paul Stolee & Don Juzwishin & Don Husereau, 2018. "Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    15. Habibollah Arefian & Monique Vogel & Anja Kwetkat & Michael Hartmann, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Prevention of Hospital Acquired Infections: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Brigid M Gillespie & Claudia Bull & Rachel Walker & Frances Lin & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer, 2018. "Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Stephen Mac & Sara R da Silva & Beate Sander, 2019. "The economic burden of Lyme disease and the cost-effectiveness of Lyme disease interventions: A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Wolf Rogowski & Wolfram Elsner, 2021. "How economics can help mitigate climate change - a critical review and conceptual analysis of economic paradigms," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2106, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    19. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    20. Zartashia Ghani & Johan Jarl & Johan Sanmartin Berglund & Martin Andersson & Peter Anderberg, 2020. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions for Older Adults: Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.