ArticleCureus2023
Cost Analysis of Low-Volume Versus Standard-Volume Ultrasound-Guided Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Economic evaluation has become an essential decision-making tool for health systems worldwide. This study was aimed at estimating the difference in the use of healthcare resources, days on sick leave, and costs between patients undergoing a standard-volume versus a low-volume ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block. Methods This is a post-hoc cost analysis of a double-blind, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. Forty-eight patients undergoing ultrasound-guided interscalene block received either 10 ml or 20 ml of levobupivacaine 0.25%. Analyses involved the public healthcare payer perspective (including visits to general practitioners, nursing staff, physiotherapy facilities, hospital admissions, outpatient diagnostic tests, etc.) and the limited societal perspective, including productivity losses (days on sick leave). Measurements were made at one-month and one-year follow-ups post-intervention. Differences in costs were estimated using two-part models adjusted by the costs incurred in the previous year. Results Subjects in the 10 ml group made greater use of general practitioner visits (mean difference [95% CI]: 3.35 [0.219 to 6.49]; p=0.036) and diagnostic tests (2.43 [0.601 to 4.26]; p=0.009), but less use of physical therapy (-12.9 [-21.7 to -4.06]; p=0.004). Mean (SD) cost differences from the public healthcare payer's perspective were 1,461.34 $ (1,541.62) and 1,024.08$ (943.83) for the 10 ml and 20 ml groups, respectively (p=0.293). From the limited societal perspective, the differences were as follows: 7,036.53$ (8,077.58) and 8,666.56$ (9,841.10), respectively (p=0.937). While there were no differences in the above parameters at the one-month follow-up. Conclusion The volume reduction proposed following interscalene block resulted in meaningful, albeit not statistically significant, clinical benefits and lower costs from a limited societal perspective for shoulder surgery. Thus, healthcare use and days on sick leave are variables to be taken into consideration when calculating the economic impact of surgical procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.