scholarly journals Radiation costing methods: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 392 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Rahman ◽  
S.J. Seung ◽  
S.Y. Cheng ◽  
H. Saherawala ◽  
C.C. Earle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Personnel Costs ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
The Cost ◽  
3D Crt

ObjectiveCosts for radiation therapy (rt) and the methods used to cost rt are highly diverse across the literature. To date, no study has compared various costing methods in detail. Our objective was to perform a thorough review of the radiation costing literature to identify sources of costs and methods used.Methods A systematic review of Ovid medline, Ovid oldmedline, embase, Ovid HealthStar, and EconLit from 2005 to 23 March 2015 used search terms such as “radiation,” “radiotherapy,” “neoplasm,” “cost,” “ cost analysis,” and “cost benefit analysis” to locate relevant articles. Original papers were reviewed for detailed costing methods. Cost sources and methods were extracted for papers investigating rt modalities, including three-dimensional conformal rt (3D-crt), intensity-modulated rt (imrt), stereotactic body rt (sbrt), and brachytherapy (bt). All costs were translated into 2014 U.S. dollars.Results Most of the studies (91%) reported in the 33 articles retrieved provided rt costs from the health system perspective. The cost of rt ranged from US$2,687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for imrt, followed by US$5,583.28 to US$90,055 for 3D-crt, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for bt, and US$6,520.58 to US$19,602.68 for sbrt. Cost drivers were professional or personnel costs and the cost of rt treatment. Most studies did not address the cost of rt equipment (85%) and institutional or facility costs (66%).Conclusions Costing methods and sources were widely variable across studies, highlighting the need for consistency in the reporting of rt costs. More work to promote comparability and consistency across studies is needed.

scholarly journals Cost of Myopia Correction: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Lian Foo ◽  
Carla Lanca ◽  
Chee Wai Wong ◽  
Daniel Ting ◽  
Ecosse Lamoureux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Contact Lenses ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Burden Of Illness ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Myopia is one of the leading causes of visual impairment globally. Despite increasing prevalence and incidence, the associated cost of treatment remains unclear. Health care spending is a major concern in many countries and understanding the cost of myopia correction is the first step eluding to the overall cost of myopia treatment. As cost of treatment will reduce the burden of cost of illness, this will aid in future cost-benefit analysis and the allocation of healthcare resources, including considerations in integrating eye care (refractive correction with spectacles) into universal health coverage (UHC). We performed a systematic review to determine the economic costs of myopia correction. However, there were few studies for direct comparison. Costs related to myopia correction were mainly direct with few indirect costs. Annual prevalence-based direct costs for myopia ranged from $14-26 (USA), $56 (Iran) and $199 (Singapore) per capita, respectively (population: 274.63 million, 75.15 million and 3.79 million, respectively). Annually, the direct costs of contact lens were $198.30-$378.10 while spectacles and refractive surgeries were $342.50 and $19.10, respectively. This review provides an insight to the cost of myopia correction. Myopia costs are high from nation-wide perspectives because of the high prevalence of myopia, with contact lenses being the more expensive option. Without further interventions, the burden of illness of myopia will increase substantially with the projected increase in prevalence worldwide. Future studies will be necessary to generate more homogenous cost data and provide a complete picture of the global economic cost of myopia.

Hostile Takeovers and Anti-takeover Defenses in the Russian Corporate Market

2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Hostile Takeovers ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Takeover Defenses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
European Markets

This article analyzes definitions and the role of hostile takeovers at the Russian and European markets for corporate control. It develops the methodology of assessing the efficiency of anti-takeover defenses adapted to the conditions of the Russian market. The paper uses the cost-benefit analysis, where the costs and benefits of the pre-bid and post-bid defenses are compared.

What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Surface Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Surface Water Quality ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Many countries are investing in measures to improve surface water quality, but the investment programmes for so doing are increasingly becoming subject to cost-benefit analysis. Whilst the cost of control measures can usually be determined for individual improvement schemes, there are currently no established procedures for valuing the benefits attributable to improved surface water quality. The paper describes a methodology that has been derived that now makes this possible.

scholarly journals Economic Analysis of the Use of VCS2000 for Pork Carcass Meat Yield Grading in Korea

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297
Author(s):  
Juntae Kim ◽  
Hyo-Dong Han ◽  
Wang Yeol Lee ◽  
Collins Wakholi ◽  
Jayoung Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Labor Costs ◽  
Meat Yield ◽  
The Cost

Currently, the pork industry is incorporating in-line automation with the aim of increasing the slaughtered pork carcass throughput while monitoring quality and safety. In Korea, 21 parameters (such as back-fat thickness and carcass weight) are used for quality grading of pork carcasses. Recently, the VCS2000 system—an automatic meat yield grading machine system—was introduced to enhance grading efficiency and therefore increase pork carcass production. The VCS2000 system is able to predict pork carcass yield based on image analysis. This study also conducted an economic analysis of the system using a cost—benefit analysis. The subsection items of the cost-benefit analysis considered were net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit/cost ratio (BC ratio), and each method was verified through sensitivity analysis. For our analysis, the benefits were grouped into three categories: the benefits of reducing labor costs, the benefits of improving meat yield production, and the benefits of reducing pig feed consumption through optimization. The cost-benefit analysis of the system resulted in an NPV of approximately 615.6 million Korean won, an IRR of 13.52%, and a B/C ratio of 1.65.

scholarly journals Beyond the Stern Review: Lessons from a risky venture at the limits of the cost–benefit analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 2479-2484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Hourcade ◽  
Philippe Ambrosi ◽  
Patrice Dumas
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Stern Review ◽  
The Cost

Inferring age from otolith measurements: a review and a new approach

2004 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 1269-1284 ◽  
Author(s):  
RIC Chris Francis ◽  
Steven E Campana
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Experiment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
New Method ◽  
Population Parameters ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mixture Analysis ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Individual Fish ◽  
The Cost

In 1985, Boehlert (Fish. Bull. 83: 103–117) suggested that fish age could be estimated from otolith measurements. Since that time, a number of inferential techniques have been proposed and tested in a range of species. A review of these techniques shows that all are subject to at least one of four types of bias. In addition, they all focus on assigning ages to individual fish, whereas the estimation of population parameters (particularly proportions at age) is usually the goal. We propose a new flexible method of inference based on mixture analysis, which avoids these biases and makes better use of the data. We argue that the most appropriate technique for evaluating the performance of these methods is a cost–benefit analysis that compares the cost of the estimated ages with that of the traditional annulus count method. A simulation experiment is used to illustrate both the new method and the cost–benefit analysis.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tears: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712098753
Author(s):  
Cammille C. Go ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
Jeffrey W. Chen ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
David R. Maldonado
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
The Cost

Background: Hip arthroscopy has frequently been shown to produce successful outcomes as a treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears. However, there is less literature on whether the favorable results of hip arthroscopy can justify the costs, especially when compared with a nonoperative treatment. Purpose: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy for treating FAI and labral tears. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched to identify articles that reported the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) generated by hip arthroscopy. The key terms used were “hip arthroscopy,” “cost,” “utility,” and “economic evaluation.” The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $50,000/QALY. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score were used to determine the quality of the studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172991). Results: Six studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy were identified, and 5 of these studies compared hip arthroscopy to a nonoperative comparator. These studies were found to have a mean QHES score of 85.2 and a mean cohort age that ranged from 33-37 years. From both a health care system perspective and a societal perspective, 4 studies reported that hip arthroscopy was more costly but resulted in far greater gains than did nonoperative treatment. The preferred treatment strategy was most sensitive to duration of benefit, preoperative osteoarthritis, cost of the arthroscopy, and the improvement in QALYs with hip arthroscopy. Conclusion: In the majority of the studies, hip arthroscopy had a higher initial cost but provided greater gain in QALYs than did a nonoperative treatment. In certain cases, hip arthroscopy can be cost-effective given a long enough duration of benefit and appropriate patient selection. However, there is further need for literature to analyze willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Drug costs and treatment choices: a DTB symposium

1993 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 41-44
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Service Managers

The relationship between drug costs and treatment choices was the subject of the first annual Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin symposium held in March 1993.* In a time of severe financial constraints for the NHS it is important that the money available is well spent. In the case of treatment that means the benefits must be worth the cost. There is, however, no agreed way of deciding when a particular health benefit to an individual is worth the cost to the NHS. Drug prices are easier to measure and more consistent than the prices of other treatments, and may be more amenable to cost-benefit analysis. Treatment choices are made primarily by doctors but with critical input from patients, pharmacists, nurses and health service managers. In this article we give an overview of the symposium at which speakers described ways in which drug costs and treatment choices were tackled in general practice (Ann McPherson, John Howie), in hospital (Dorothy Anderson), in clinical research and audit (Iain Chalmers, Alison Frater), by consumers (Anna Bradley), by health economists (Mike Drummond) and by government (Joe Collier). We also take into account points raised in discussion by the participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document