[微创手术治疗消化道肿瘤的健康经济评价:meta分析]。

X Y Yin, N Zhou, X L Yang, Z Y Sun, Y H Bao, S S Wang, K Han, J Long, M Zhao, H W Li, R R Li, S M Chen, J H Yang, H H Li, Y T Shi, G N Zhu, J H Wang, S S Yang, B Y Li, W C Wang, S Y Du, Y He, E J Ling-Hu, H K Li, M Liu, J Xie
{"title":"[微创手术治疗消化道肿瘤的健康经济评价:meta分析]。","authors":"X Y Yin, N Zhou, X L Yang, Z Y Sun, Y H Bao, S S Wang, K Han, J Long, M Zhao, H W Li, R R Li, S M Chen, J H Yang, H H Li, Y T Shi, G N Zhu, J H Wang, S S Yang, B Y Li, W C Wang, S Y Du, Y He, E J Ling-Hu, H K Li, M Liu, J Xie","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240530-00318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare minimally invasive surgery with traditional open surgery, analyze the current application status of health economic evaluations in the treatment of digestive tract cancers, such as esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer by minimally invasive surgery and provide evidence for the rational selection of clinical treatment, alleviation of disease-related economic burdens, and rational allocation of healthcare resources. <b>Methods:</b> By using five databases, i.e. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, and Embase, a database was established to retrieve all the papers about health economic studies of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer published until December 31, 2023. Literature was analyzed by using software NoteExpress 3.8, and data were processed using Excel 2021. The quality of included papers was evaluated using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, and Meta-analysis was conducted by using software Stata 17.0. <b>Results:</b> A total of 10 919 relevant papers were retrieved, and 59 studies were included. Only 14 studies (23.7%) used standard health economic evaluation methods. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in direct medical expenditure and total expenditure between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. However, the expenditure for minimally invasive surgery exhibited a significant increase [mean difference (<i>MD</i>)=5 973.12 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001], while hospital stay and indirect expenditure significantly decreased (<i>MD</i>: -4.85 days and -733.79 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001). In China, for gastric cancer, the direct medical expenditure of endoscopic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (<i>MD</i>=-33 000.00 yuan) with no significant difference (<i>P</i><0.001). In colorectal cancer cases, the direct medical and surgical expenditures for laparoscopic surgery were higher than those for open surgery (<i>MD</i>: 4 277.94 yuan and 4 267.80 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001), while the indirect and total medical expenditures decreased (<i>MD</i>: -768.34 yuan and -159.10 yuan). Hospital stays in patients who had minimally invasive surgery for all three types of cancer were shorter than those who had open surgery (<i>P</i><0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> In the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery shows higher expenditure, but has advantages, such as shorter hospital stay and lower indirect expenditure, and there were no significant differences in direct medical and total expenditures between the two approaches. When conducting health economic evaluation, factors such as postoperative complications, hospital stay, and patient's economic status should be considered for their impact on total medical expenditure. It is necessary to pay attention to the application of health economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":23968,"journal":{"name":"中华流行病学杂志","volume":"46 1","pages":"154-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Health economic evaluation of minimally invasive surgery in treatment of digestive tract cancers: a Meta-analysis].\",\"authors\":\"X Y Yin, N Zhou, X L Yang, Z Y Sun, Y H Bao, S S Wang, K Han, J Long, M Zhao, H W Li, R R Li, S M Chen, J H Yang, H H Li, Y T Shi, G N Zhu, J H Wang, S S Yang, B Y Li, W C Wang, S Y Du, Y He, E J Ling-Hu, H K Li, M Liu, J Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240530-00318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare minimally invasive surgery with traditional open surgery, analyze the current application status of health economic evaluations in the treatment of digestive tract cancers, such as esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer by minimally invasive surgery and provide evidence for the rational selection of clinical treatment, alleviation of disease-related economic burdens, and rational allocation of healthcare resources. <b>Methods:</b> By using five databases, i.e. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, and Embase, a database was established to retrieve all the papers about health economic studies of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer published until December 31, 2023. Literature was analyzed by using software NoteExpress 3.8, and data were processed using Excel 2021. The quality of included papers was evaluated using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, and Meta-analysis was conducted by using software Stata 17.0. <b>Results:</b> A total of 10 919 relevant papers were retrieved, and 59 studies were included. Only 14 studies (23.7%) used standard health economic evaluation methods. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in direct medical expenditure and total expenditure between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. However, the expenditure for minimally invasive surgery exhibited a significant increase [mean difference (<i>MD</i>)=5 973.12 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001], while hospital stay and indirect expenditure significantly decreased (<i>MD</i>: -4.85 days and -733.79 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001). In China, for gastric cancer, the direct medical expenditure of endoscopic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (<i>MD</i>=-33 000.00 yuan) with no significant difference (<i>P</i><0.001). In colorectal cancer cases, the direct medical and surgical expenditures for laparoscopic surgery were higher than those for open surgery (<i>MD</i>: 4 277.94 yuan and 4 267.80 yuan, <i>P</i><0.001), while the indirect and total medical expenditures decreased (<i>MD</i>: -768.34 yuan and -159.10 yuan). Hospital stays in patients who had minimally invasive surgery for all three types of cancer were shorter than those who had open surgery (<i>P</i><0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> In the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery shows higher expenditure, but has advantages, such as shorter hospital stay and lower indirect expenditure, and there were no significant differences in direct medical and total expenditures between the two approaches. When conducting health economic evaluation, factors such as postoperative complications, hospital stay, and patient's economic status should be considered for their impact on total medical expenditure. It is necessary to pay attention to the application of health economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华流行病学杂志\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"154-165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华流行病学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240530-00318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华流行病学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240530-00318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对比微创手术与传统开放手术,分析微创手术在食管癌、胃癌、结直肠癌等消化道肿瘤治疗中的应用现状,为临床合理选择治疗方案、减轻疾病相关经济负担、合理配置医疗资源提供依据。方法:利用中国国家知识基础设施、万方数据、中国生物医学文献数据库、PubMed、Embase 5个数据库建立数据库,检索截至2023年12月31日发表的有关食管癌、胃癌、结直肠癌微创手术健康经济学研究的所有论文。文献分析采用NoteExpress 3.8软件,数据处理采用Excel 2021软件。采用CHEERS 2022检查表对纳入论文的质量进行评价,采用Stata 17.0软件进行meta分析。结果:共检索相关文献10 919篇,纳入59项研究。仅有14项研究(23.7%)采用了标准的卫生经济评价方法。meta分析结果显示,微创手术与开放手术的直接医疗费用和总医疗费用无显著差异。而微创手术费用有显著增加[MD= 5 973.12元,PMD= -4.85天,-733.79元,PMD=-33 000.00元],无显著差异(PMD: 4 277.94元和4 267.80元,PMD: -768.34元和-159.10元)。结论:在胃肠道肿瘤的治疗中,与开放手术相比,微创手术费用较高,但具有住院时间较短、间接费用较低的优势,两种方法的直接医疗费用和总费用均无显著差异。在进行卫生经济评价时,应考虑术后并发症、住院时间、患者经济状况等因素对医疗总支出的影响。重视卫生经济评价在卫生决策中的应用。
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
[Health economic evaluation of minimally invasive surgery in treatment of digestive tract cancers: a Meta-analysis].

Objective: To compare minimally invasive surgery with traditional open surgery, analyze the current application status of health economic evaluations in the treatment of digestive tract cancers, such as esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer by minimally invasive surgery and provide evidence for the rational selection of clinical treatment, alleviation of disease-related economic burdens, and rational allocation of healthcare resources. Methods: By using five databases, i.e. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, and Embase, a database was established to retrieve all the papers about health economic studies of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer published until December 31, 2023. Literature was analyzed by using software NoteExpress 3.8, and data were processed using Excel 2021. The quality of included papers was evaluated using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, and Meta-analysis was conducted by using software Stata 17.0. Results: A total of 10 919 relevant papers were retrieved, and 59 studies were included. Only 14 studies (23.7%) used standard health economic evaluation methods. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in direct medical expenditure and total expenditure between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. However, the expenditure for minimally invasive surgery exhibited a significant increase [mean difference (MD)=5 973.12 yuan, P<0.001], while hospital stay and indirect expenditure significantly decreased (MD: -4.85 days and -733.79 yuan, P<0.001). In China, for gastric cancer, the direct medical expenditure of endoscopic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (MD=-33 000.00 yuan) with no significant difference (P<0.001). In colorectal cancer cases, the direct medical and surgical expenditures for laparoscopic surgery were higher than those for open surgery (MD: 4 277.94 yuan and 4 267.80 yuan, P<0.001), while the indirect and total medical expenditures decreased (MD: -768.34 yuan and -159.10 yuan). Hospital stays in patients who had minimally invasive surgery for all three types of cancer were shorter than those who had open surgery (P<0.001). Conclusions: In the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery shows higher expenditure, but has advantages, such as shorter hospital stay and lower indirect expenditure, and there were no significant differences in direct medical and total expenditures between the two approaches. When conducting health economic evaluation, factors such as postoperative complications, hospital stay, and patient's economic status should be considered for their impact on total medical expenditure. It is necessary to pay attention to the application of health economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making.

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
中华流行病学杂志
中华流行病学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8981
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1981, is an advanced academic periodical in epidemiology and related disciplines in China, which, according to the principle of integrating theory with practice, mainly reports the major progress in epidemiological research. The columns of the journal include commentary, expert forum, original article, field investigation, disease surveillance, laboratory research, clinical epidemiology, basic theory or method and review, etc.  The journal is included by more than ten major biomedical databases and index systems worldwide, such as been indexed in Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), Europe PubMed Central, Embase, Chemical Abstract, Chinese Science and Technology Paper and Citation Database (CSTPCD), Chinese core journal essentials overview, Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) core database, Chinese Biological Medical Disc (CBMdisc), and Chinese Medical Citation Index (CMCI), etc. It is one of the core academic journals and carefully selected core journals in preventive and basic medicine in China.
期刊最新文献
[A simulation study for handling two-way treatment switching in rare event scenarios]. [A survey on the cognition of mpox expertise among relevant clinicians in China]. [Analysis of characteristics of anonymous online dating and related factors of not being tested for HIV among men who have sex with men in Shandong Province]. [Analysis on adverse treatment outcome of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis patients and influencing factors in 9 provinces in China, 2017-2021]. [Association between dietary choline intake trajectories and cognitive function in middle-aged and older population].
×
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