A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study
Objective To evaluate cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) and open hysterectomy for adenomyosis. Design A retrospective analysis. Setting Gynaecological department in a single centre in China. Population Patients with symptomatic adenomyosis. Main outc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2017-08, Vol.124 (S3), p.40-45 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 45 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | S3 |
| container_start_page | 40 |
| container_title | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology |
| container_volume | 124 |
| creator | Liu, XF Huang, LH Zhang, C Huang, GH Yan, LM He, J |
| description | Objective
To evaluate cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) and open hysterectomy for adenomyosis.
Design
A retrospective analysis.
Setting
Gynaecological department in a single centre in China.
Population
Patients with symptomatic adenomyosis.
Main outcome measures
Cost difference between patients with adenomyosis treated with USgHIFU and open hysterectomy.
Methods
Three hundred and sixty‐eight patients with adenomyosis were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 302 patients were treated with USgHIFU and 66 patients with open hysterectomy. All of them had 1‐, 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month follow ups. The patients’ quality of life (QOL) was evaluated and the utility scores were obtained from a rating scale to conduct a cost–utility analysis (CUA).
Results
No significant differences were found at any follow‐up time point in the QOL between the two groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the QOL scores significantly increased in both groups (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1471-0528.14746 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1934280453</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1933859701</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4126-27557e537c3eea30b3d39683f3e327ebbe49032ddd8ebeac6fb73811f0b668143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1O3TAQha2qVaG0a3bIUjfdBOw4cXzZUdRfIbGBteXEE65REl88dqvseIRKiBfkSepwKZW6qSXL4-Nvjjw6hOxzdsjzOuJVwwtWl-owV5V8QXaflZePNSuYKNUOeYN4zRiXJROvyU6pVC2VlLvk_oR2ftyY4NBP1Pc0riErGB9u71J0g4vzoqYhBoM-Tfbh9tdVchYsXburdb65KcKEC9f7LmF--AtTk_d6xggBuujHhQnUWJhy7dHhMTU0QAweNxlwP4BiTHZ-S171ZkB493TukcvPny5OvxZn51--nZ6cFV3FS1mUTV03UIumEwBGsFZYsZJK9AJE2UDbQrXK41trFbRgOtm3jVCc96yVUvFK7JEPW99N8DcJMOrRYQfDYCbwCTVfiapUrKpFRt__g177FKb8u4USql41jGfqaEt1eSQM0OtNcKMJs-ZML4npJR-95KMfE8sdB0--qR3BPvN_IspAvQV-ugHm__npj9_Pt8a_AR1Ppn4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1933859701</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Liu, XF ; Huang, LH ; Zhang, C ; Huang, GH ; Yan, LM ; He, J</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, XF ; Huang, LH ; Zhang, C ; Huang, GH ; Yan, LM ; He, J</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To evaluate cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) and open hysterectomy for adenomyosis.
Design
A retrospective analysis.
Setting
Gynaecological department in a single centre in China.
Population
Patients with symptomatic adenomyosis.
Main outcome measures
Cost difference between patients with adenomyosis treated with USgHIFU and open hysterectomy.
Methods
Three hundred and sixty‐eight patients with adenomyosis were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 302 patients were treated with USgHIFU and 66 patients with open hysterectomy. All of them had 1‐, 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month follow ups. The patients’ quality of life (QOL) was evaluated and the utility scores were obtained from a rating scale to conduct a cost–utility analysis (CUA).
Results
No significant differences were found at any follow‐up time point in the QOL between the two groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the QOL scores significantly increased in both groups (P < 0.05): the quality adjusted life year (QALY) for patients treated with USgHIFU was USUS$5256.48, whereas it was USUS$7510.03 for patients treated with open hysterectomy. Both incremental cost and sensitivity analysis showed that USgHIFU was less costly than open hysterectomy.
Conclusions
The QOL of patients with adenomyosis can be significantly improved by either USgHIFU or open hysterectomy, but USgHIFU is less costly.
Tweetable
USgHIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.
Tweetable
USg HIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-0328</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14746</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28856866</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adenomyosis ; Adenomyosis - economics ; Adenomyosis - psychology ; Adenomyosis - surgery ; Adult ; Comparative studies ; Cost analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; cost–utility analysis ; Female ; Gynecology ; Health care expenditures ; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - economics ; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - methods ; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - psychology ; high‐intensity focused ultrasound ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Hysterectomy - economics ; Hysterectomy - methods ; Hysterectomy - psychology ; Middle Aged ; open hysterectomy ; Preoperative Care - methods ; Quality of Life ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Reproductive system ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity analysis ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasonic technology ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2017-08, Vol.124 (S3), p.40-45</ispartof><rights>2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</rights><rights>2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4126-27557e537c3eea30b3d39683f3e327ebbe49032ddd8ebeac6fb73811f0b668143</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4126-27557e537c3eea30b3d39683f3e327ebbe49032ddd8ebeac6fb73811f0b668143</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1471-0528.14746$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1471-0528.14746$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28856866$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, XF</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, LH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, GH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, LM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, J</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study</title><title>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</title><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><description>Objective
To evaluate cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) and open hysterectomy for adenomyosis.
Design
A retrospective analysis.
Setting
Gynaecological department in a single centre in China.
Population
Patients with symptomatic adenomyosis.
Main outcome measures
Cost difference between patients with adenomyosis treated with USgHIFU and open hysterectomy.
Methods
Three hundred and sixty‐eight patients with adenomyosis were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 302 patients were treated with USgHIFU and 66 patients with open hysterectomy. All of them had 1‐, 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month follow ups. The patients’ quality of life (QOL) was evaluated and the utility scores were obtained from a rating scale to conduct a cost–utility analysis (CUA).
Results
No significant differences were found at any follow‐up time point in the QOL between the two groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the QOL scores significantly increased in both groups (P < 0.05): the quality adjusted life year (QALY) for patients treated with USgHIFU was USUS$5256.48, whereas it was USUS$7510.03 for patients treated with open hysterectomy. Both incremental cost and sensitivity analysis showed that USgHIFU was less costly than open hysterectomy.
Conclusions
The QOL of patients with adenomyosis can be significantly improved by either USgHIFU or open hysterectomy, but USgHIFU is less costly.
Tweetable
USgHIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.
Tweetable
USg HIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.</description><subject>Adenomyosis</subject><subject>Adenomyosis - economics</subject><subject>Adenomyosis - psychology</subject><subject>Adenomyosis - surgery</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>cost–utility analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health care expenditures</subject><subject>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - economics</subject><subject>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - methods</subject><subject>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - psychology</subject><subject>high‐intensity focused ultrasound</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - economics</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - methods</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - psychology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>open hysterectomy</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - methods</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Reproductive system</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ultrasonic technology</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1O3TAQha2qVaG0a3bIUjfdBOw4cXzZUdRfIbGBteXEE65REl88dqvseIRKiBfkSepwKZW6qSXL4-Nvjjw6hOxzdsjzOuJVwwtWl-owV5V8QXaflZePNSuYKNUOeYN4zRiXJROvyU6pVC2VlLvk_oR2ftyY4NBP1Pc0riErGB9u71J0g4vzoqYhBoM-Tfbh9tdVchYsXburdb65KcKEC9f7LmF--AtTk_d6xggBuujHhQnUWJhy7dHhMTU0QAweNxlwP4BiTHZ-S171ZkB493TukcvPny5OvxZn51--nZ6cFV3FS1mUTV03UIumEwBGsFZYsZJK9AJE2UDbQrXK41trFbRgOtm3jVCc96yVUvFK7JEPW99N8DcJMOrRYQfDYCbwCTVfiapUrKpFRt__g177FKb8u4USql41jGfqaEt1eSQM0OtNcKMJs-ZML4npJR-95KMfE8sdB0--qR3BPvN_IspAvQV-ugHm__npj9_Pt8a_AR1Ppn4</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Liu, XF</creator><creator>Huang, LH</creator><creator>Zhang, C</creator><creator>Huang, GH</creator><creator>Yan, LM</creator><creator>He, J</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study</title><author>Liu, XF ; Huang, LH ; Zhang, C ; Huang, GH ; Yan, LM ; He, J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4126-27557e537c3eea30b3d39683f3e327ebbe49032ddd8ebeac6fb73811f0b668143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adenomyosis</topic><topic>Adenomyosis - economics</topic><topic>Adenomyosis - psychology</topic><topic>Adenomyosis - surgery</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>cost–utility analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health care expenditures</topic><topic>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - economics</topic><topic>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - methods</topic><topic>High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - psychology</topic><topic>high‐intensity focused ultrasound</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - economics</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - methods</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - psychology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>open hysterectomy</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - methods</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Reproductive system</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ultrasonic technology</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, XF</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, LH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, GH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, LM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, XF</au><au>Huang, LH</au><au>Zhang, C</au><au>Huang, GH</au><au>Yan, LM</au><au>He, J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study</atitle><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>124</volume><issue>S3</issue><spage>40</spage><epage>45</epage><pages>40-45</pages><issn>1470-0328</issn><eissn>1471-0528</eissn><abstract>Objective
To evaluate cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) and open hysterectomy for adenomyosis.
Design
A retrospective analysis.
Setting
Gynaecological department in a single centre in China.
Population
Patients with symptomatic adenomyosis.
Main outcome measures
Cost difference between patients with adenomyosis treated with USgHIFU and open hysterectomy.
Methods
Three hundred and sixty‐eight patients with adenomyosis were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 302 patients were treated with USgHIFU and 66 patients with open hysterectomy. All of them had 1‐, 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month follow ups. The patients’ quality of life (QOL) was evaluated and the utility scores were obtained from a rating scale to conduct a cost–utility analysis (CUA).
Results
No significant differences were found at any follow‐up time point in the QOL between the two groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the QOL scores significantly increased in both groups (P < 0.05): the quality adjusted life year (QALY) for patients treated with USgHIFU was USUS$5256.48, whereas it was USUS$7510.03 for patients treated with open hysterectomy. Both incremental cost and sensitivity analysis showed that USgHIFU was less costly than open hysterectomy.
Conclusions
The QOL of patients with adenomyosis can be significantly improved by either USgHIFU or open hysterectomy, but USgHIFU is less costly.
Tweetable
USgHIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.
Tweetable
USg HIFU can safely be used to treat patients with adenomyosis and significantly improved the quality of life of patients after treatment. The cost of USgHIFU is less than that of surgical treatment.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28856866</pmid><doi>10.1111/1471-0528.14746</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1470-0328 |
| ispartof | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2017-08, Vol.124 (S3), p.40-45 |
| issn | 1470-0328 1471-0528 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1934280453 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adenomyosis Adenomyosis - economics Adenomyosis - psychology Adenomyosis - surgery Adult Comparative studies Cost analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis cost–utility analysis Female Gynecology Health care expenditures High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - economics High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - methods High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation - psychology high‐intensity focused ultrasound Humans Hysterectomy Hysterectomy - economics Hysterectomy - methods Hysterectomy - psychology Middle Aged open hysterectomy Preoperative Care - methods Quality of Life Quality-Adjusted Life Years Reproductive system Retrospective Studies Sensitivity analysis Treatment Outcome Ultrasonic technology Ultrasound |
| title | A comparison of the cost–utility of ultrasound‐guided high‐intensity focused ultrasound and hysterectomy for adenomyosis: a retrospective study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A16%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20the%20cost%E2%80%93utility%20of%20ultrasound%E2%80%90guided%20high%E2%80%90intensity%20focused%20ultrasound%20and%20hysterectomy%20for%20adenomyosis:%20a%20retrospective%20study&rft.jtitle=BJOG%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology&rft.au=Liu,%20XF&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=S3&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=45&rft.pages=40-45&rft.issn=1470-0328&rft.eissn=1471-0528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1471-0528.14746&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1933859701%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1933859701&rft_id=info:pmid/28856866&rfr_iscdi=true |