PubMed · 8870853
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C W Bryan-Brown, K Dracup. 1996. Doing more with less.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8870853/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
"Outcomes research" is a commonly used term, but what does it really mean? In this review article, we 1) briefly review the historic background of outcomes research, paying particular attention to the social and political movements that helped shape the field; 2) present a conceptual framework to help classify the major areas of research and provide a working definition of outcomes research; and 3) review the oncology literature in the English language from 1966 through 1998 to examine temporal trends and characterize the body of work being presented to the practicing oncology community. We conclude that outcomes research is a broad concept, which, in its current usage, describes an array of distinct types of research. However, common themes are apparent when outcomes research is viewed in the context of its historic origins and is contrasted with other established disciplines, especially clinical trials. Our literature review shows that outcomes studies are increasing in absolute numbers, in relative proportion of the oncology literature, and in quality. We suggest that as different branches of investigation develop their own literature and methodology-in effect, outgrowing the generic label of outcomes research-they become identified by separate, more precise terms.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
For the prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding, studies show that patients treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) have lower rebleeding rates compared with endoscopic therapy. However, TIPS is associated with higher rates of portosystemic encephalopathy and possibly higher costs. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TIPS with endoscopic sclerotherapy and endoscopic ligation for the prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding. Data for rates of rebleeding, death, complications, and crossover from endoscopy to TIPS were obtained from the literature. Costs for procedures and hospitalizations were obtained from two medical centers. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying probabilities of key variables. The patient population consisted of a hypothetical cohort of cirrhotic patients successfully treated for esophageal variceal bleeding with endoscopic sclerotherapy who received prophylactic sclerotherapy, ligation, or TIPS over 1 year. Endoscopic patients would receive propranolol. Mortality was similar for the three groups. The number of bleeds per patient for sclerotherapy, ligation, and TIPS would be 0.39, 0.32, and 0.07, respectively. The total annual costs per patient for sclerotherapy, ligation, and TIPS were $23,459, $23,111, and $26,275, respectively. The incremental cost per bleed prevented for TIPS compared with sclerotherapy and ligation was $8,803 and $12, 660, respectively. The incremental cost per bleed prevented for TIPS compared with sclerotherapy or ligation was sensitive to the cost of TIPS and the TIPS stenosis rate. Ligation had lower costs and lower recurrent bleeding rates than sclerotherapy. Compared with endoscopic therapy, TIPS leads to lower recurrent variceal bleeding rates and it is more cost effective in the short term for the prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding.