A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is currently the principal alternative to cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement in the management of pediatric hydrocephalus. Cost-effectiveness analysis can help determine the optimal strategy for integrating these different approaches. METHODS: All patients (n = 28) who underwent ETV at British Columbia's Children's Hospital between 1989 and 1998 were matched for age, pathogenesis, and number of previous shunt procedures, with patients treated with cerebrospinal fluid shunts. To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis, hydrocephalus-related resource consumption and outcome (determined as the number of hydrocephalus treatment-free days during follow-up) were then retrospectively identified. Cost data were linked to resource use to provide a total cost for all resources used. Costs and outcomes were discounted annually at 5% by standard economic analysis methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 28 ETV patients had obstructive hydrocephalus. Over equivalent follow-up periods (median, 35 mo), the ETV success rate (defined by need for reoperation) was 54%. One hydrocephalus-related death and one hemiparesis occurred in the ETV group. No permanent procedure-related morbidity or mortality was seen in the shunt group. The cost/effect ratios for the two groups were similar. The additional incremental resource use by the shunt group included six readmissions and eight reoperations. ETV mean costs per patient were $10,570 +/- $7628, versus $10,922 +/- $8722 for the shunt group (Canadian dollars for the year 2000). Costs accrued more quickly for the shunt group as time passed. The additional incremental outcome benefit to the endoscopy group was 86 treatment-free days (3.07 d per patient [95% confidence interval, -7.56 to 13.70 d]). Neither of these differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this matched cohort, ETV was not significantly less costly or more effective over a median 35 months of follow-up, with a 54% initial ETV success rate, even before the additional morbidity and mortality encountered were taken into account. The time course for the accrued costs suggests that a larger cohort, longer follow-up, or higher success rates are needed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".