We
1
agree that the quality and results of a cost-effectiveness study are only as good
as the data and assumptions used in the model. In our study, for instance, we extrapolated
utility data for office fulguration using data from other endoscopic procedures and
assumed recurrence rates based on a well-regarded meta-analysis.
2
We performed sensitivity analyses to provide a perspective on outcomes if these assumptions
were varied. Office-based fulguration is more cost effective than operating room–based
transurethral resection of the bladder.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of management of low-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer using office-based fulguration.Urology. 2015; 85: 381-387
- A single immediate postoperative instillation of chemotherapy decreases the risk of recurrence in patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of published results of randomized clinical trials.J Urol. 2004; 171 (quiz 2435): 2186-2190
- Changes in financial burdens for health care: national estimates for the population younger than 65 years, 1996 to 2003.JAMA. 2006; 296: 2712-2719
- The health economics of bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the published literature.PharmacoEconomics. 2003; 21: 1315-1330
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 85Issue 2
- PreviewReducing health care costs has long been a priority for payers and policymakers for at least 2 reasons. First and foremost, perpetuating historical trends in spending growth would be incompatible with a healthy economy. Second, there is increasing recognition that the US health care system is inefficient, exemplified by productivity gains in the United States lagging behind those of comparable nations that spend far less per capita. Indeed, even American professional organizations have acknowledged as much, evidenced by the American Board of Internal Medicine's “Choosing Wisely” campaign.
- Full-Text
- Preview
