FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3013286749> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3013286749 endingPage "520.e1" @default.
• W3013286749 startingPage "511" @default.
• W3013286749 abstract "Background With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature. Methods We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost–utility, cost–benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery. Results A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost–utility analyses, and 8 cost–benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years. Conclusions The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations—a trend persistent in other surgical specialties—and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery. With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature. We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost–utility, cost–benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery. A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost–utility analyses, and 8 cost–benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years. The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations—a trend persistent in other surgical specialties—and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery." @default.
• W3013286749 created "2020-04-03" @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5005071249 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5021294163 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5025810454 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5025988280 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5047945711 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5061587164 @default.
• W3013286749 creator A5071234473 @default.
• W3013286749 date "2020-08-01" @default.
• W3013286749 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3013286749 title "A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Vascular Surgery" @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1967319337 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1969855952 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1976993313 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1979574962 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1995183622 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W1997336301 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2016598980 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2030852672 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2035840717 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2055582382 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2077335287 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2088495974 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2091123812 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2095672126 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2103573409 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2105863790 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2108536461 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2121983847 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2150009962 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2153244834 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2163705351 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2273749064 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2288464497 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2322267919 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2565210326 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2598752225 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2743741538 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2808144293 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W2918002111 @default.
• W3013286749 cites W4294214983 @default.
• W3013286749 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2020.03.033" @default.
• W3013286749 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234577" @default.
• W3013286749 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3013286749 type Work @default.
• W3013286749 sameAs 3013286749 @default.
• W3013286749 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W3013286749 countsByYear W30132867492020 @default.
• W3013286749 countsByYear W30132867492022 @default.
• W3013286749 countsByYear W30132867492023 @default.
• W3013286749 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5005071249 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5021294163 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5025810454 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5025988280 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5047945711 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5061587164 @default.
• W3013286749 hasAuthorship W3013286749A5071234473 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C127454912 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C138816342 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C2776125615 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C2777010666 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C2778789114 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C524218345 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C127454912 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C138816342 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C141071460 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C142724271 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C159110408 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C160735492 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C162324750 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C168563851 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C17744445 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C18903297 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C189708586 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C199539241 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C27415008 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C2776125615 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C2776478404 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C2777010666 @default.
• W3013286749 hasConceptScore W3013286749C2778789114 @default.

• next