Boston, Mass.; and Montreal, Quebec, Canada From the Massachusetts General Hospital; Harvard Medical School; and the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Apr;133(4):584e-592e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000004.
Cost-utility studies, common in medicine, are rare within plastic surgery despite their capability of measuring the value of procedures by considering the societal costs of improving quality of life. The objectives of this study were to analyze the design quality of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature and to identify areas of needed improvement for future studies.
A scoring tool was constructed based on the Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. A PubMed search through October of 2012 was conducted for English-language plastic surgery utility studies. Articles were selected using two inclusion criteria and evaluated using the scoring tool.
A 9-point scoring tool was created, and 37 publications were selected. Their average score was 3 out of 9 points. Thirty studies (81 percent) used population preferences in utility measurements. Fifteen studies (41 percent) measured costs, but only four (11 percent) included indirect costs and only five (14 percent) applied discount rates to calculate the value of treatments over time. Three studies (8 percent) earned zero points. The highest scoring study earned 8 points.
The identified studies manifest the potential of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery. Nonetheless, they are inconsistent in applying established cost-utility guidelines, especially in measuring costs and conducting recommended sensitivity analysis. Following this simple scoring tool can help future studies achieve some necessary improvements.
尽管成本效用研究能够通过考虑提高生活质量的社会成本来衡量手术的价值，但在整形外科学领域中，此类研究却较为少见。本研究旨在分析整形外科学成本效用文献的设计质量，并确定未来研究需要改进的领域。
基于卫生保健成本-效用评价专家组的建议构建了一个评分工具。通过 2012 年 10 月的 PubMed 检索，搜索了英文的整形外科学效用研究。使用两个纳入标准选择文章，并使用评分工具进行评估。
创建了一个 9 分制的评分工具，共选择了 37 篇文章。其平均得分为 9 分制的 3 分。30 项研究（81%）在效用测量中使用了人群偏好。15 项研究（41%）测量了成本，但只有 4 项（11%）包括间接成本，只有 5 项（14%）应用了贴现率来计算随时间推移的治疗价值。有 3 项研究（8%）得分为 0 分。得分最高的研究得分为 8 分。
已识别的研究表明了成本效用分析在整形外科学中的潜力。尽管如此，它们在应用既定的成本效用指南方面并不一致，尤其是在测量成本和进行推荐的敏感性分析方面。遵循这个简单的评分工具可以帮助未来的研究取得一些必要的改进。
