MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical or Surgical Therapy for Erosive Reflux Esophagitis

2002· article· en· W2066116491 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph Romagnuolo, Michael Meier, Daniel Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalGrey Nuns Community HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOmeprazoleReflux esophagitisEsophagitisNissen fundoplicationProton-pump inhibitorMedical costsCost effectivenessSurgeryInternal medicineRefluxDiseaseHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and utility of healing and maintenance regimens of omeprazole and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in the framework of the Canadian medical system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors for endoscopically proven reflux esophagitis is a safe and effective treatment option. Of late, the surgical treatment of choice for this disease has become LNF. METHODS: The authors' base case was a 45-year-old man with erosive reflux esophagitis refractory to H2-blockers. A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing the two strategies. A two-stage Markov model (healing and maintenance phases) was used to estimate costs and utilities with a time horizon of 5 years. Discounted direct costs were estimated from the perspective of a provincial health ministry, and discounted quality-of-life estimates were derived from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model to the authors' assumptions and to determine thresholds. A Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 patients was used to estimate variances and 95% interpercentile ranges. RESULTS: For the 5-year period studied, LNF was less expensive than omeprazole (3519.89 dollars vs. 5464.87 dollars per patient) and became the more cost-effective option at 3.3 years of follow-up. The authors found that 20 mg/day omeprazole would have to cost less than 38.60 dollars per month before medical therapy became cost effective; conversely, the cost of LNF would have to be more than 5,273.70 dollars or the length of stay more than 4.2 days for medical therapy to be cost effective. Estimates of quality-adjusted life-years did not differ significantly between the two treatment options, and the incremental cost for medical therapy was 129,665 dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe esophagitis, LNF is a cost-effective alternative to long-term maintenance therapy with proton pump inhibitors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.351
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.057 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207