Cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel-releasing device for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review.
Asal Sadat Niaraees Zavare, Aziz Rezapour, Aghdas Souresrafil, Safoura Rouholamin, Setare Nassiri
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel-releasing device for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review.","authors":"Asal Sadat Niaraees Zavare, Aziz Rezapour, Aghdas Souresrafil, Safoura Rouholamin, Setare Nassiri","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2417014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to provide a clear understanding of the relative economic evaluation of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted without restrictions until October 5, 2023, across databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and others. The review included studies using full economic evaluation methods to compare treatments, excluding review articles, editorials, abstracts, and non-English articles. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QHES checklist and analyzed with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 156 articles assessed for full-text evaluations, 23 publications were selected for qualitative analysis. Two studies deemed to be of low quality were excluded from the final analysis, while the majority of studies showcased high quality. The findings presented diverse perspectives on the most cost-effective treatment, with LNG-IUD frequently emerging as the preferred choice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are diverse methodologies in economic evaluations, impacting reported health economic outcomes due to varying perspectives, time horizons, and modeling approaches. The review highlighted the need for further research to establish optimal HMB treatment strategies and to guide healthcare resource allocation.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024530176).</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2417014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to provide a clear understanding of the relative economic evaluation of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted without restrictions until October 5, 2023, across databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and others. The review included studies using full economic evaluation methods to compare treatments, excluding review articles, editorials, abstracts, and non-English articles. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QHES checklist and analyzed with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios.
Results: Out of 156 articles assessed for full-text evaluations, 23 publications were selected for qualitative analysis. Two studies deemed to be of low quality were excluded from the final analysis, while the majority of studies showcased high quality. The findings presented diverse perspectives on the most cost-effective treatment, with LNG-IUD frequently emerging as the preferred choice.
Conclusion: There are diverse methodologies in economic evaluations, impacting reported health economic outcomes due to varying perspectives, time horizons, and modeling approaches. The review highlighted the need for further research to establish optimal HMB treatment strategies and to guide healthcare resource allocation.
期刊介绍：
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
