PubMed · 9256874
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P T Becker. 1997. Legislative alert.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199708)20%3A4%3C279%3A%3Aaid-nur1%3E3.0.co%3B2-d
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is a serious and expensive sequela of chronic liver disease, leading to increased utilization of resources. Today, endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic ligation (EL) are the accepted, community standards of endoscopic treatment of patients with EVH. However, there are no published studies comparing the economic costs of treating EVH using these interventions. As part of a prospective, randomized trial comparing ES and EL for the treatment of EVH, we estimated the direct costs of health care utilization and cost-effectiveness for the prevention of variceal rebleeding and patient survival at 1-year follow-up. Treatment groups were similar in incidence of variceal rebleeding (41.9% vs. 42.9%), variceal obliteration (41.9% vs. 40.0%), hospital days, blood transfusions, shunt requirements, and survival (71.0% vs. 60.0%). There were significantly more treatment failures for active bleeding using EL (42% vs. 0%; P =.027) and esophageal stricture formation in the ES-treated patients (19.4% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.03). Median total direct cost outcomes were similar between groups (EL = $9,696 and ES = $13,197; P =.46). EL and ES had similar cost/variceal rebleeding prevented ($28,678 vs. $29,093) and cost/survival ($27,313 vs. $23,804). In the subgroup of active bleeders, ES had a substantially lower cost/survival ($28,523 vs. $51,696). We conclude that resource utilization was similar between treatment groups and that the choice of endoscopic therapy for EVH must still rely on clinical grounds. Further studies comparing costs and resource utilization in this patient population are needed.
The appearance of colonies on the chromogenic medium CHROMagar Candida combined with observation of morphology on corn meal-Tween 80 agar was used for the identification of 353 clinical yeast isolates. The results were compared with those obtained with API yeast identification kits. The accuracy of identification and the turnaround time were equivalent for each method, and our cultural method was less expensive.
This symposium report evaluates the achievements made in caries diagnostic research since the previous symposium held in 1992. The symposium aimed at presenting the state of the art of caries diagnostic methods, on presenting the links between caries diagnosis and subsequent treatment decisions and their effect on the treatment outcomes, particularly the quality of dental care. The variation among dentists in diagnosing (small) caries lesions and in treatment decision making is considerable. This has been explained by the imperfection of caries decision making tests, but also by making incorrect treatment decisions due to incorrect or partial understanding of diagnostic test parameters. Meta-analyses into the performance of caries diagnostic tests revealed that the available quantitative methods are very promising. It was concluded that these methods had high correlations with lesion depth. They were considered suitable to monitor small changes in lesions. Many obstacles have been experienced in attempting to transfer the outcomes of diagnostic research into clinical practice and it was concluded that caries diagnosis researchers should co-operate with manufacturers to introducing valid new diagnostic tools to the market. Main research priorities for the coming 10 years are to conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies of caries diagnostic tools, to continue to review the performances of diagnostic tests, to transfer diagnostic knowledge and experience to the general practitioners particularly by constructing evidence-based clinical guide-lines, to study the relationship between diagnosis and treatment decision, and to assess the effect of diagnostic and treatment decisions on the outcome of care.