The cost effectiveness of transesophageal echocardiography for pediatric cardiac surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (ITEE) for pediatric cardiac surgery has been described as clinically efficacious and cost-effective. There are a small number of publications supporting these claims. AIMS: The objectives were to assess the quality of the research, the variability of results across studies and, if possible, to make a consensus statement based on the results. METHODS: In March 2015, a systematic search of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was performed. The search was supplemented with a review of Health Technology Assessment reports through the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. English language articles including any quantitative economic evaluation were included. The quality of each study was assessed using the British Medical Journal economic evaluation quality checklist. Data extracted included the main outcomes from each study, study methodologies, itemized costs, sensitivity ranges, biases, and delayed reoperation prevented with ITEE. When possible, a cost-savings per ITEE was calculated to facilitate comparison across studies and used to create a synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria; of these, five were included in the synthesis of results. The cost-savings per ITEE ranged from $194 to $4910 with a mean of $1930 (95%CI: $845 to $3015) (2015 USD). Prevented delayed reoperation rates using ITEE ranged from 2.8% to 10%. Earlier studies were of poorer quality (scores 8-17) and more recent studies were of higher quality (scores 22-25). Methodologies used were either retrospective chart reviews (57%) or prospective observational studies (43%) with a range of approaches to estimate costs. CONCLUSION: ITEE for pediatric cardiac surgery is effective and cost-saving. This is a validation of the current practice patterns. These finding may influence the expansion of the use of this technology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".