Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review

Autores
Vogel, Joshua P.; Wilson, Alyce N.; Scott, Nick; Widmer, Mariana; Althabe, Fernando; Oladapo, Olufemi T.
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Background: Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost‐effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting. Objective: To review available data on cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment. Search strategy: PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015. Selection criteria: Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effective‐ ness studies that provided cost or economic data. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Main results: Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suc‐ tion devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose‐designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost‐ effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost‐ effective because of the low cost per disability‐adjusted life‐year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series. Conclusions: Evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.
Fil: Vogel, Joshua P.. Monash University; Australia
Fil: Wilson, Alyce N.. Burnet Institute; Australia
Fil: Scott, Nick. Monash University; Australia. Burnet Institute; Australia
Fil: Widmer, Mariana. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina
Fil: Althabe, Fernando. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Oladapo, Olufemi T.. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina
Materia
COST
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE
UTERINE BALLOON TAMPONADE
UTERINE TAMPONADE
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/142490
Acceder
id CONICETDig_12dbc3477d51ae535ecfb638574db164
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/142490
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic reviewVogel, Joshua P.Wilson, Alyce N.Scott, NickWidmer, MarianaAlthabe, FernandoOladapo, Olufemi T.COSTCOST-EFFECTIVENESSPOSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGEUTERINE BALLOON TAMPONADEUTERINE TAMPONADEhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background: Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost‐effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting. Objective: To review available data on cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment. Search strategy: PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015. Selection criteria: Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effective‐ ness studies that provided cost or economic data. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Main results: Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suc‐ tion devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose‐designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost‐ effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost‐ effective because of the low cost per disability‐adjusted life‐year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series. Conclusions: Evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.Fil: Vogel, Joshua P.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Wilson, Alyce N.. Burnet Institute; AustraliaFil: Scott, Nick. Monash University; Australia. Burnet Institute; AustraliaFil: Widmer, Mariana. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Althabe, Fernando. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Oladapo, Olufemi T.. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; ArgentinaWiley2020-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/142490Vogel, Joshua P.; Wilson, Alyce N.; Scott, Nick; Widmer, Mariana; Althabe, Fernando; et al.; Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review; Wiley; International Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics; 151; 3; 9-2020; 333-3400020-7292CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/ijgo.13393info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.13393info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:00:14Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/142490instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:00:14.707CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
title Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
spellingShingle Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
Vogel, Joshua P.
COST
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE
UTERINE BALLOON TAMPONADE
UTERINE TAMPONADE
title_short Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
title_full Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
title_sort Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Vogel, Joshua P.
Wilson, Alyce N.
Scott, Nick
Widmer, Mariana
Althabe, Fernando
Oladapo, Olufemi T.
author Vogel, Joshua P.
author_facet Vogel, Joshua P.
Wilson, Alyce N.
Scott, Nick
Widmer, Mariana
Althabe, Fernando
Oladapo, Olufemi T.
author_role author
author2 Wilson, Alyce N.
Scott, Nick
Widmer, Mariana
Althabe, Fernando
Oladapo, Olufemi T.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv COST
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE
UTERINE BALLOON TAMPONADE
UTERINE TAMPONADE
topic COST
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE
UTERINE BALLOON TAMPONADE
UTERINE TAMPONADE
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Background: Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost‐effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting. Objective: To review available data on cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment. Search strategy: PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015. Selection criteria: Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effective‐ ness studies that provided cost or economic data. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Main results: Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suc‐ tion devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose‐designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost‐ effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost‐ effective because of the low cost per disability‐adjusted life‐year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series. Conclusions: Evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.
Fil: Vogel, Joshua P.. Monash University; Australia
Fil: Wilson, Alyce N.. Burnet Institute; Australia
Fil: Scott, Nick. Monash University; Australia. Burnet Institute; Australia
Fil: Widmer, Mariana. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina
Fil: Althabe, Fernando. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Oladapo, Olufemi T.. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina
description Background: Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost‐effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting. Objective: To review available data on cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment. Search strategy: PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015. Selection criteria: Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effective‐ ness studies that provided cost or economic data. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Main results: Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suc‐ tion devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose‐designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost‐ effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost‐ effective because of the low cost per disability‐adjusted life‐year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series. Conclusions: Evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-09
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/142490
Vogel, Joshua P.; Wilson, Alyce N.; Scott, Nick; Widmer, Mariana; Althabe, Fernando; et al.; Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review; Wiley; International Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics; 151; 3; 9-2020; 333-340
0020-7292
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/142490
identifier_str_mv Vogel, Joshua P.; Wilson, Alyce N.; Scott, Nick; Widmer, Mariana; Althabe, Fernando; et al.; Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review; Wiley; International Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics; 151; 3; 9-2020; 333-340
0020-7292
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/ijgo.13393
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.13393
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269626829897728
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares