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

Malene Korsholm (), Jan Sørensen (), Ole Mogensen (), Chunsen Wu (), Kamilla Karlsen () and Pernille T. Jensen ()
Additional contact information
Malene Korsholm: Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
Jan Sørensen: University of Southern Denmark
Ole Mogensen: Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute
Chunsen Wu: Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
Kamilla Karlsen: Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark
Pernille T. Jensen: Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark

Health Economics Review, 2018, vol. 8, issue 1, 1-9

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Economics; Robot-assisted laparoscopy; Cost analysis; Gynecologic surgery (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0207-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13561

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics Review is currently edited by J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

More articles in Health Economics Review from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().