Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence–trans‐obturator tape compared with tension‐free vaginal tape–5‐year follow up: an economic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic evaluation of the use of trans-obturator tape (TOT) compared with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. DESIGN: Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from a public-payer perspective, conducted alongside a randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Health services provided in Alberta, Canada. SAMPLE: A total of 195 women participated in the randomised clinical trial, followed to 5 years postsurgery. METHODS: Comparisons were undertaken between study groups for cost and two health-outcome measures. Multiple imputation was used to estimate the 14% of missing data. Bootstrapping was used to account for sampling uncertainty. Sensitivity analyses were based on complete case analyses and the removal of a TVT patient with extreme health service cost. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 15D instrument was used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the primary analysis. Absence of serious adverse events was also analysed. Costs were based on inpatient and outpatient hospital use data and practitioner fee-for-service claims data. RESULTS: The TOT group had a nonsignificant average saving of $2368 (95% CI -$7166 to $2548) and incremental gain of 0.04 QALYs (95% CI -0.06 to 0.14) compared with TVT. TOT was dominant in over 71% of bootstrap replications and cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay. Cost-effectiveness analysis using the absence of an serious adverse events provided similar results. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that TOT is cost-effective compared with TVT in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The results of a 5-year cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that trans-obturator tape is cost-effective compared with tension-free vaginal tape in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".