↓ Skip to main content

Economic burden of cancer among patients with surgical resections of the lung, rectum, liver and uterus: results from a US hospital database claims analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Economic burden of cancer among patients with surgical resections of the lung, rectum, liver and uterus: results from a US hospital database claims analysis
Published in
Health Economics Review, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0160-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iftekhar Kalsekar, Chia-Wen Hsiao, Hang Cheng, Sashi Yadalam, Brian Po-Han Chen, Laura Goldstein, Andrew Yoo

Abstract

To determine hospital resource utilization, associated costs and the risk of complications during hospitalization for four types of surgical resections and to estimate the incremental burden among patients with cancer compared to those without cancer. Patients (≥18 years old) were identified from the Premier Research Database of US hospitals if they had any of the following types of elective surgical resections between 1/2008 and 12/2014: lung lobectomy, lower anterior resection of the rectum (LAR), liver wedge resection, or total hysterectomy. Cancer status was determined based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs, as well as frequency of bleeding and infections during hospitalization were evaluated. The impact of cancer status on outcomes (from a hospital perspective) was evaluated using multivariable generalized estimating equation models; analyses were conducted separately for each resection type. Among the identified patients who underwent surgical resection, 23 858 (87.9% with cancer) underwent lung lobectomy, 13 522 (63.8% with cancer) underwent LAR, 2916 (30.0% with cancer) underwent liver wedge resection and 225 075 (11.3% with cancer) underwent total hysterectomy. After adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, mean ORT, LOS, and hospital cost were statistically higher by 3.2%, 8.2%, and 9.2%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent lung lobectomy; statistically higher by 6.9%, 9.4%, and 9.6%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent LAR; statistically higher by 4.9%, 14.8%, and 15.7%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent liver wedge resection; and statistically higher by 16.0%, 27.4%, and 31.3%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent total hysterectomy. Among patients who underwent each type of resection, risks for bleeding and infection were generally higher among patients with cancer as compared to those without cancer. In this analysis, we found that patients who underwent lung lobectomy, lower anterior resection of the rectum (LAR), liver wedge resection or total hysterectomy for a cancer indication have significantly increased hospital resource utilization compared to these same surgeries for benign indications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#302
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,068
of 317,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.