16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: the ESTER systematic review and economic evaluation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Urinary incontinence in women is a distressing condition that restricts quality of life and results in a large economic burden to both the NHS and women themselves.

          Objective

          To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women and explore women’s preferences.

          Design

          An evidence synthesis, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and an economic decision model, with a value-of-information (VOI) analysis. Nine surgical interventions were compared. Previous Cochrane reviews for each were identified and updated to include additional studies. Systematic review methods were applied. The outcomes of interest were ‘cure’ and ‘improvement’. Both a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted for all available surgical comparisons. A DCE was undertaken to assess the preferences of women for treatment outcomes. An economic model assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative surgeries and a VOI analysis was undertaken.

          Results

          Data from 175 studies were included in the effectiveness review. The majority of included studies were rated as being at high or unclear risk of bias across all risk-of-bias domains. The NMA, which included 120 studies that reported data on ‘cure’ or ‘improvement’, showed that retropubic mid-urethral sling (MUS), transobturator MUS, traditional sling and open colposuspension were more effective than other surgical procedures for both primary outcomes. The results for other interventions were variable. In general, rate of tape and mesh exposure was higher after transobturator MUS than after retropubic MUS or single-incision sling, whereas the rate of tape or mesh erosion/extrusion was similar between transobturator MUS and retropubic MUS. The results of the DCE, in which 789 women completed an anonymous online questionnaire, indicate that women tend to prefer surgical treatments associated with no pain or mild chronic pain and shorter length of hospital stay as well as those treatments that have a smaller risk for urinary symptoms to reoccur after surgery. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, retropubic MUS is, on average, the least costly and most effective surgery. However, the high level of uncertainty makes robust estimates difficult to ascertain. The VOI analysis highlighted that further research around the incidence rates of complications would be of most value.

          Limitations

          Overall, the quality of the clinical evidence was low, with limited data available for the assessment of complications. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust evidence and significant uncertainty around some parameters in the economic modelling.

          Conclusions

          To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive assessment of published evidence for the treatment of SUI. There is some evidence that retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS and traditional sling are effective in the short to medium term and that retropubic MUS is cost-effective in the medium to long term. The VOI analysis highlights the value of further research to reduce the uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications. There is a need to obtain robust clinical data in future work, particularly around long-term complication rates.

          Study registration

          This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016049339.

          Funding

          The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

          Related collections

          Most cited references190

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The measurement of urban travel demand

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses

            When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical and graphical ways. In this paper, we discuss ranking strategies and visual depictions of rank, including the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve method. We present ranking approaches’ merits and limitations and provide an example of how to apply the results of a NMA to clinical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Cognitive Interviewing

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Technology Assessment
                Health Technol Assess
                National Institute for Health Research
                1366-5278
                2046-4924
                March 2019
                March 2019
                : 23
                : 14
                : 1-306
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [2 ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [3 ]Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [4 ]European Association of Urology, Arnhem, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Patient and Public Involvement Lay Representative, Edinburgh, UK
                [6 ]Scottish Public Health Network, NHS Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK
                [7 ]Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
                [8 ]University Hospital Southampton Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
                Article
                10.3310/hta23140
                6462840
                30929658
                b6dfa24b-324c-4266-94c7-14f24b4b903a
                © 2019

                Free to read

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article