Dataset Information

Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?

ABSTRACT: To determine the growth rate, methodologic clarity, and quality changes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and to assess whether the U.S. Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations affected CEA studies in which imaging technologies were evaluated.Six databases were systematically searched for CEA reports published between 1985 and 2005. All imaging-related studies were selected and grouped according to year, country, and journal of publication, as well as imaging modality and disease being studied. Two readers with formal training in decision analysis and CEA used a seven-point (1, low; 7, high) Likert scale based on reasonableness of assumptions, quality of presentation, and adherence to guidelines to independently evaluate study quality. Quality scores according to year, country, and journal of publication were compared with the unpaired Student t test.The first radiology-related CEA was published in 1985; 111 radiology-related CEAs were published between 1985 and 2005. The average number of studies increased from 1.6 per year between 1985 and 1995 to 9.4 per year between 1996 and 2005. Eighty-six studies were performed to evaluate diagnostic imaging technologies, and 25 were performed to evaluate interventional imaging technologies. Ultrasonography (35.0%), angiography (31.5%), magnetic resonance imaging (22.5%), and computed tomography (19.8%) were evaluated most frequently. Forty-nine studies received government funds; 42 did not disclose the source of funding. The mean quality score was 4.23 +/- 1.12 (standard deviation), without significant improvement over time. Scores in studies performed in the United States were significantly higher than scores in studies that were not performed in the United States (4.45 +/- 1.02 vs 3.61 +/- 1.17, respectively; P < .01). Scores were also higher in journals with three or more CEA articles published during the study period than in journals with two or fewer CEA articles published during this period (4.54 +/- 1.09 vs 3.91 +/- 1.06, respectively; P < .01).CEAs are an important tool with which to analyze the value of diagnostic imaging. However, improvement in the quality of analyses is needed.http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/249/3/917/DC1.

SUBMITTER: Otero HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2691813 | biostudies-other | 2008 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?

Otero Hansel J HJ Rybicki Frank J FJ Greenberg Dan D Neumann Peter J PJ

Radiology 20081201 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine the growth rate, methodologic clarity, and quality changes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and to assess whether the U.S. Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations affected CEA studies in which imaging technologies were evaluated.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Six databases were systematically searched for CEA reports published between 1985 and 2005. All imaging-related studies were selected and grouped according to year, country, and jo ...[more]

PMID: 19011188

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is the leading cause of death worldwide. Although the mortality of sepsis patients has been decreasing over the past decade, the trend of medical costs and cost-effectiveness for sepsis treatment remains insufficiently determined.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study using the nationwide medical claims database of sepsis patients in Japan between 2010 and 2017. After selecting sepsis patients with a combined diagnosis of presumed serious infection and organ failure, patients over the age of 20 were included in this study. We investigated the annual trend of medical costs during the study period. The primary outcome was the annual trend of the effective cost per survivor, calculated from the gross medical cost and number of survivors per year. Subsequently, we performed subgroup and multiple regression analyses to evaluate the association between the annual trend and medical costs.ResultsAmong 50,490,128 adult patients with claims, a total of 1,276,678 patients with sepsis were selected from the database. Yearly gross medical costs to treat sepsis gradually increased over the decade from $3.04 billion in 2010 to $4.38 billion in 2017, whereas the total medical cost per hospitalization declined (rate = - $1075/year, p < 0.0001). While the survival rate of sepsis patients improved during the study period, the effective cost per survivor significantly decreased (rate = - $1806/year [95% CI - $2432 to - $1179], p = 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the trend of decreasing medical cost per hospitalization remained consistent among the subpopulation of age, sex, and site of infection. After adjusting for age, sex (male), number of chronic diseases, site of infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, surgery, and length of hospital stay, the admission year was significantly associated with reduced medical costs.ConclusionsWe demonstrated an improvement in annual cost-effectiveness in patients with sepsis between 2010 and 2017. The annual trend of reduced costs was consistent after adjustment with the confounders altering hospital expenses.

Dataset Information

Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?

Publications

Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets