The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Carina Østervig Andersen, Helena Travis, Emilie Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Rasmus Russell () and Emmelie Ploug Jørgensen
Additional contact information
Carina Østervig Andersen: Aalborg University
Helena Travis: Ambu A/S
Emilie Dehlholm-Lambertsen: Ambu Ltd.
Rasmus Russell: Ambu A/S
Emmelie Ploug Jørgensen: Aalborg University

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2022, vol. 6, issue 6, No 2, 787-797

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objective Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) and SFBs. This meta-analysis aimed to compile the current published evidence to analyse the cost of different scenarios using RFBs and SFBs. Methods All published literature describing the cost of RFBs or SFBs was identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar, limited to those between 1 January, 2009 and 6 November, 2020. Included studies should report the total cost of RFBs. Continuous data were extracted for relevant outcomes and analysed using RStudio® 4.0.3 as the standardised mean difference and standard error of the mean in a mixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed based on the reporting quality. Results In the systematic literature review, 342 studies were initially identified, and 11 were included in the final analysis. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively. Conclusions In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0 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:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-022-00356-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().