Economic evaluation of endoscopic sinus surgery versus continued medical therapy for refractory chronic rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic evaluation. METHODS: The economic perspective was the U.S. third-party payer with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment strategies were: 1) ESS, followed by appropriate postoperative medical therapy; and 2) continued medical therapy alone. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5% in the reference case. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including differing time-horizons, discounting scenarios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: The reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $48,838.38 and produced a total of 20.50 QALYs. The medical therapy alone strategy cost a total of $28,948.98 and produced a total of 17.13 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ESS versus medical therapy alone is $5,901.90 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve from the PSA demonstrated that there is a 74% certainty that the ESS strategy is the most cost-effective decision for any willingness to pay a threshold greater than $25,000. The time-horizon analysis suggests that ESS becomes the cost-effective intervention within the third year after surgery. CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that employing an ESS treatment strategy is the most cost-effective intervention compared to continued medical therapy alone for the long-term management of patients with refractory CRS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".