↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies
Published in
Health Economics Review, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0207-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malene Korsholm, Jan Sørensen, Ole Mogensen, Chunsen Wu, Kamilla Karlsen, Pernille T. Jensen

Abstract

The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Engineering 5 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,326,067
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#99
of 294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,361
of 275,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 294 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 275,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them