机器人辅助手术的经济评估:方法、挑战和机遇。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1
Tzu-Jung Lai, Robert Heggie, Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman, Janet Bouttell, Kathleen Boyd
{"title":"机器人辅助手术的经济评估:方法、挑战和机遇。","authors":"Tzu-Jung Lai, Robert Heggie, Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman, Janet Bouttell, Kathleen Boyd","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.\",\"authors\":\"Tzu-Jung Lai, Robert Heggie, Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman, Janet Bouttell, Kathleen Boyd\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机器人辅助手术(RAS)的使用正在迅速增长。然而,对这一技术进行经济评估是一项挑战。本研究旨在确定和讨论用于评估机器人辅助手术的不同经济评估方法:本范围综述系统检索了 2015 年至 2023 年的 PubMed 和 Embase。我们纳入了比较 RAS 与腹腔镜或开腹手术的经济评估研究。综合卫生经济评价报告标准(CHEERS)核对表用于帮助数据提取,并扩展到与RAS相关的其他特征,包括学习曲线、组织影响、增量创新和动态定价:结果:共纳入了 50 项关于 RAS 的经济评价。成本效用分析(46%)是最常用的经济评估方法,其次是成本后果分析(32%)。研究主要集中在泌尿外科(42%)、肝胆胰外科(20%)、结肠直肠外科(14%)和妇科(6%)。在经济评估中,与 RAS 评估相关的显著特征未得到充分考虑。只有 40% 的纳入研究考虑了学习曲线和组织影响,不到 12% 的纳入研究反映了增量创新和动态定价:本综述发现,一些研究在其评估中纳入了 RAS 特有的挑战。然而,大多数研究仍然缺乏重要的关键方面。特别是,研究很少考虑到 RAS 平台在多个专业之间共享的能力。纳入这些独特的功能为经济评估提供了一个机会,使决策者能更真实地评估该技术的成本效益,并确保其在临床实践中得到最佳利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.

Background: The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.

Method: This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

Results: A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

Conclusions: This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Cost-Effective and Sustainable Drug Use in Hospitals: A Systematic and Practice-Based Approach. Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy Norms Based on the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 for China. Value is Gendered: The Need for Sex and Gender Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations. Assessing the Direct Impact of Death on Discrete Choice Experiment Utilities. Acknowledgement to Referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1