PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2011
A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening methods for dysphagia after stroke.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wilson Richard D, Howe Evan C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of dysphagia screening in the acute poststroke period with use of a videofluoroscopic swallowing study, a clinical bedside swallowing evaluation, or a combined approach.
DESIGN: Decision-analysis model.
METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used with information derived from multiple data sources, including meta-analyses and other relevant clinical studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis assessed direct medical costs of pneumonia. Strategies were compared on the basis of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years.
RESULTS: The strategy of having each patient undergo a videofluoroscopic swallowing study for dysphagia was more effective and less costly than the strategies of clinical bedside swallowing evaluation alone or a combined approach. The model was most influenced by the reduction in the risk of pneumonia attributable to the treatment of mild/moderate and severe dysphagia, the effectiveness of treatment with clinical bedside swallowing evaluation, the baseline probability of pneumonia, and the cost of a videofluoroscopic swallowing study.
CONCLUSIONS: A videofluoroscopic swallowing study is cost-effective and often saves costs compared with a clinical bedside swallowing evaluation alone or a combined approach. Research aimed at improving the understanding of the effectiveness of treatment for dysphagia in the prevention of aspiration pneumonia and resulting mortality would improve the model.
DESIGN: Decision-analysis model.
METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used with information derived from multiple data sources, including meta-analyses and other relevant clinical studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis assessed direct medical costs of pneumonia. Strategies were compared on the basis of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years.
RESULTS: The strategy of having each patient undergo a videofluoroscopic swallowing study for dysphagia was more effective and less costly than the strategies of clinical bedside swallowing evaluation alone or a combined approach. The model was most influenced by the reduction in the risk of pneumonia attributable to the treatment of mild/moderate and severe dysphagia, the effectiveness of treatment with clinical bedside swallowing evaluation, the baseline probability of pneumonia, and the cost of a videofluoroscopic swallowing study.
CONCLUSIONS: A videofluoroscopic swallowing study is cost-effective and often saves costs compared with a clinical bedside swallowing evaluation alone or a combined approach. Research aimed at improving the understanding of the effectiveness of treatment for dysphagia in the prevention of aspiration pneumonia and resulting mortality would improve the model.