IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v8y2018i1d10.1186_s13561-018-0207-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies

Author

Listed:
  • Malene Korsholm

    (Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
    University of Southern Denmark
    University of Southern Denmark
    Center of Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Jan Sørensen

    (University of Southern Denmark
    Healthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)

  • Ole Mogensen

    (Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute
    University of Southern Denmark)

  • Chunsen Wu

    (Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
    University of Southern Denmark)

  • Kamilla Karlsen

    (Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
    University of Southern Denmark)

  • Pernille T. Jensen

    (Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
    University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

Objectives The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Malene Korsholm & Jan Sørensen & Ole Mogensen & Chunsen Wu & Kamilla Karlsen & Pernille T. Jensen, 2018. "A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0207-5
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5?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. Zafer Tandogdu & Luke Vale & Cynthia Fraser & Craig Ramsay, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 457-467, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olanrewaju Medu & Adegboyega Lawal & Doug Coyle & Kevin Pottie, 2021. "Economic evaluation of HIV testing options for low-prevalence high-income countries: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    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. María A. Martínez-Maestre & Lidia M. Melero-Cortés & Pluvio J. Coronado & Carmen González-Cejudo & Nuria García-Agua & Antonio J. García-Ruíz & Francisco Jódar-Sánchez, 2019. "Long term COST-minimization analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0207-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.