• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Meta 分析早期与延迟胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的成本效益。

Meta-analysis of the cost-effectiveness of early delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

机构信息

Department of Hepatobiliary and Transplant Surgery St Vincent's University Hospital Elm Park, Dublin 4 Ireland, D04 T6F4.

出版信息

BJS Open. 2019 Feb 12;3(2):146-152. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50120. eCollection 2019 Apr.

DOI:10.1002/bjs5.50120
PMID:30957060
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6433303/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a common disease across the world and is associated with significant socioeconomic costs. Although contemporary guidelines support the role of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC), there is significant variation among units adopting it as standard practice. There are many resource implications of providing a service whereby cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis can be performed safely.

METHODS

Studies that incorporated an economic analysis comparing early with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis were identified by means of a systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed on those cost evaluations. The quality of economic valuations contained therein was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) analysis score.

RESULTS

Six studies containing cost analyses were included in the meta-analysis with 1128 patients. The median healthcare cost of ELC DLC was €4400 and €6004 respectively. Five studies had adequate data for pooled analysis. The standardized mean difference between ELC and DLC was -2·18 (95 per cent c.i. -3·86 to -0·51;  = 0·011;  = 98·7 per cent) in favour of ELC. The median QHES score for the included studies was 52·17 (range 41-72), indicating overall poor-to-fair quality.

CONCLUSION

Economic evaluations within clinical trials favour ELC for ACC. The limited number and poor quality of economic evaluations are noteworthy.

摘要

背景

急性结石性胆囊炎(ACC)是一种在世界各地都很常见的疾病,与巨大的社会经济成本相关。尽管当代指南支持早期腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ELC)的作用,但在将其作为标准实践采用方面,各单位之间存在显著差异。提供一种服务需要考虑许多资源问题,即可以安全地对急性胆囊炎患者进行胆囊切除术。

方法

通过系统评价,确定了将早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术(DLC)治疗急性胆囊炎进行经济分析比较的研究。对这些成本评估进行了荟萃分析。使用健康经济研究质量评估(QHES)分析评分来评估其中经济评估的质量。

结果

荟萃分析纳入了 6 项包含成本分析的研究,共有 1128 名患者。ELC-DLC 的中位医疗保健成本分别为 4400 欧元和 6004 欧元。五项研究有足够的数据进行汇总分析。ELC 与 DLC 之间的标准化均数差值为-2.18(95%置信区间-3.86 至-0.51;P=0.011;=98.7%),有利于 ELC。纳入研究的中位数 QHES 评分为 52.17(范围 41-72),表明整体质量较差至一般。

结论

临床试验中的经济评估支持 ELC 用于 ACC。值得注意的是,经济评估的数量有限且质量较差。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/b8e752618644/BJS5-3-146-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/e945d452ba17/BJS5-3-146-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/d619ac8ae904/BJS5-3-146-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/b8e752618644/BJS5-3-146-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/e945d452ba17/BJS5-3-146-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/d619ac8ae904/BJS5-3-146-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7181/6433303/b8e752618644/BJS5-3-146-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Meta-analysis of the cost-effectiveness of early delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.Meta 分析早期与延迟胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的成本效益。
BJS Open. 2019 Feb 12;3(2):146-152. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50120. eCollection 2019 Apr.
2
Meta-analysis comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.比较急性胆囊炎早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术的荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1302-13. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9886. Epub 2015 Aug 12.
3
Cost-utility and value-of-information analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的成本-效用和信息价值分析。
Br J Surg. 2010 Feb;97(2):210-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6872.
4
Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases the total hospital stay compared to an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute cholecystitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.与急性胆囊炎后早期腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术会增加总住院时间:一项随机对照试验的更新荟萃分析。
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Oct;17(10):857-62. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12449. Epub 2015 Jul 27.
5
Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的比较:一项最新的随机对照试验荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec;32(12):4728-4741. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6400-0. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
6
Analysis of actual healthcare costs of early versus interval cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis.急性胆囊炎早期与延期胆囊切除术的实际医疗费用分析。
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015 Mar;22(3):237-43. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.196. Epub 2014 Nov 30.
7
Hospital Enforcement of Early Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis.医院对急性胆囊炎实施早期胆囊切除术
Am Surg. 2019 Aug 1;85(8):858-860.
8
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的安全性和有效性的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2010 Feb;97(2):141-50. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6870.
9
Single center retrospective analysis of early vs. delayed treatment in acute calculous cholecystitis: application of a clinical pathway and an economic analysis.急性结石性胆囊炎早期与延迟治疗的单中心回顾性分析:临床路径的应用及经济学分析
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015 Sep;21(5):373-9. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2015.62679.
10
Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC study, NCT00447304).急性胆囊炎:早期与延迟胆囊切除术的多中心随机试验(ACDC 研究,NCT00447304)。
Ann Surg. 2013 Sep;258(3):385-93. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a1599b.

引用本文的文献

1
Outcomes after index cholecystectomy: a UK longitudinal multi-centre cohort Study.初次胆囊切除术后的结局:一项英国纵向多中心队列研究。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025 Jan 7;410(1):27. doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03567-7.
2
Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.切塞纳指南:WSES 关于普通外科急症和腹部创伤腹腔镜优先方法的共识声明。
World J Emerg Surg. 2023 Dec 8;18(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13017-023-00520-9.
3
Effects of Individualized Nursing Based on Zero-Defect Theory on Perioperative Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

本文引用的文献

1
Acute calculous cholecystitis: Review of current best practices.急性结石性胆囊炎:当前最佳实践综述
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017 May 27;9(5):118-126. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i5.118.
2
Population-based cohort study of variation in the use of emergency cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases.基于人群的队列研究:良性胆囊疾病中急诊胆囊切除术使用的变化。
Br J Surg. 2016 Nov;103(12):1716-1726. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10288. Epub 2016 Oct 17.
3
Early Versus Delayed Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis, Are the 72 hours Still the Rule?: A Randomized Trial.
基于零缺陷理论的个体化护理对腹腔镜胆囊切除术围手术期患者的影响。
Dis Markers. 2022 May 14;2022:5086350. doi: 10.1155/2022/5086350. eCollection 2022.
4
Incremental net benefit of cholecystectomy compared with alternative treatments in people with gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.与其他治疗方法相比,胆囊切除术在有胆囊结石或胆囊炎的人群中的增量净效益:成本效益研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan;9(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000779.
5
An analysis of the incidence, causes and preventative approaches to gram-negative bloodstream infections of hepatopancreatobiliary origin.肝胰胆源性革兰氏阴性菌血流感染的发病率、病因及预防方法分析
J Infect Prev. 2021 May;22(3):111-118. doi: 10.1177/1757177420973763. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
早期与延迟胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎:72 小时仍然是金标准吗?:一项随机试验。
Ann Surg. 2016 Nov;264(5):717-722. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001886.
4
Meta-analysis comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.比较急性胆囊炎早期与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术的荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1302-13. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9886. Epub 2015 Aug 12.
5
Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases the total hospital stay compared to an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute cholecystitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.与急性胆囊炎后早期腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术会增加总住院时间:一项随机对照试验的更新荟萃分析。
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Oct;17(10):857-62. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12449. Epub 2015 Jul 27.
6
Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report.与临床试验并行的成本效益分析II——一份药物经济学与结果研究协会良好研究实践工作组报告
Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):161-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001.
7
Early Cholecystectomy Is Superior to Delayed Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: a Meta-analysis.早期胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎优于延迟胆囊切除术:一项荟萃分析。
J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 May;19(5):848-57. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2747-x. Epub 2015 Mar 7.
8
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis: comparison of outcomes and costs between early and delayed cholecystectomy.腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎:早期和延迟胆囊切除术的结局和成本比较。
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014 Dec;18(2 Suppl):40-6.
9
Analysis of actual healthcare costs of early versus interval cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis.急性胆囊炎早期与延期胆囊切除术的实际医疗费用分析。
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015 Mar;22(3):237-43. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.196. Epub 2014 Nov 30.
10
Acute cholecystitis: WSES position statement.急性胆囊炎:世界急诊外科学会立场声明。
World J Emerg Surg. 2014 Nov 18;9(1):58. doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-58. eCollection 2014.