4.4 Article

Immediate Adenoidectomy vs Initial Watchful Waiting Strategy in Children With Recurrent Upper Respiratory Tract Infections An Economic Evaluation

期刊

JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
卷 139, 期 2, 页码 129-133

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1324

关键词

-

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. ZonMw-the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Health Care Efficiency Research Programme [80-007022-98-07901]
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NIHR-RP-011-045] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the costs associated with 2 clinical strategies in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs): immediate adenoidectomy vs an initial watchful waiting strategy. Design: A cost-minimization analysis from a societal perspective including both direct and indirect costs, alongside an open randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Setting: Multicenter study, including 11 general and 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients: The study population comprised 111 children aged 1 through 6 years, selected for adenoidectomy for recurrent URTIs according to current clinical practice. Intervention: A strategy of immediate adenoidectomy with or without myringotomy or a strategy of initial watchful waiting. Main Outcomes Measures: Difference in median costs during the 2-year follow-up. Results: The median total of direct and indirect costs in the adenoidectomy and watchful waiting group were (sic)1385 (US $1995) and (sic)844 (US $1216) per patient, respectively. The extra costs in the adenoidectomy group are primarily attributable to surgery and visits to the otorhinolaryngologist. Other costs did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: In children selected for adenoidectomy for recurrent URTIs, immediate adenoidectomy results in an increase in costs, whereas it confers no clinical benefit over an initial watchful waiting strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据