MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316927784 · doi:10.1080/13696998.2023.2169496

Adopting a portfolio of ultrasonic and advanced bipolar electrosurgery devices from a single manufacturer compared to currently used ultrasonic and advanced bipolar devices: a probabilistic budget impact analysis from a Spanish hospital perspective

2023· article· en· W4316927784 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Piemontese, Lucas Cohen, George Wright, Natalia Robledinos-Antón, N. Jamous, Giovanni A. Tommaselli, Thibaut Galvain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid and Parathyroid Surgery
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectrosurgeryPortfolioEnergy budgetSurgeryOperations managementEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Advanced energy devices are commonly used in electrosurgery, including ultrasonic and advanced bipolar (ABP) devices. Smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes are also utilized during electrosurgery to improve staff and patient safety. This study assessed the budget impact of adopting a portfolio of Ethicon energy devices compared to devices from other manufacturers from a Spanish hospital perspective. METHODS: The main analysis compared the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio (ultrasonic and ABP devices) to Non-Ethicon advanced energy devices. It was assumed that 4,000 procedures using one advanced energy device each were performed annually, and the cost impact of operating room time, length of stay, and transfusions were considered. A probabilistic budget impact analysis with 10,000 iterations was conducted for generalizability to other hospitals in Spain and Europe. Secondary analysis assessed whether cost savings from the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio could offset costs of adopting smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes (Full Ethicon energy portfolio). RESULTS: In the main analysis, the annual budget impact of introducing the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio was cost saving in 79.8% of probabilistic iterations (mean: -€945,214; 95% credible interval [CrI]: -€3,242,710; €1,285,942) with a mean budget impact per procedure of -€236 (95% CrI: -€811; €321). In the secondary analysis, adding smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes was still cost saving in 75.3% of iterations compared to Non-Ethicon advanced energy devices (mean: -€778,208; 95% CrI: -€3,075,086; €1,464,728) with a mean budget impact per procedure of -€97 (95% CrI: -€384; €183). Savings resulted from differences in operating room time, length of hospital stay, and volume of disposable electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting Ethicon advanced energy devices demonstrated economic benefits compared to non-Ethicon devices. Introducing the advanced portfolio may improve surgical care quality and the full portfolio was cost saving while improving OR safety for staff and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicThyroid and Parathyroid SurgeryFrench-language works237,207