Single-use versus multiple-use accessories in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mandana Zanganeh, Yufei Jiang, Anna Brown, Yen-Fu Chen, Ramesh P Arasaradnam, Lazaros Andronis
{"title":"Single-use versus multiple-use accessories in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of economic evaluations.","authors":"Mandana Zanganeh, Yufei Jiang, Anna Brown, Yen-Fu Chen, Ramesh P Arasaradnam, Lazaros Andronis","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In many countries, single-use endoscopy accessories such as forceps have almost replaced their reusable counterparts. We reviewed the evidence on the broader economic cost and environmental impacts associated with single-use and multiple-use accessories for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review following the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 September 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included published economic evaluations on single-use and reusable GI endoscope accessories which were written in English.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two independent reviewers extracted data and quality-assessed identified studies according to the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven economic analyses were included: all were cost analyses. Three studies were from the USA, three from Europe and one from Korea. Patients in these studies underwent GI endoscopy (n=3), colonoscopy (n=2), gastroscopy (n=1) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n=1). All studies compared single-use with reusable accessories, of which six were forceps. Reprocessing and purchase costs were included in all studies, repair costs were included in three studies, and environmental impact was only considered in one study. Most studies (n=5) reported a higher cost per procedure associated with single-use accessories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Apart from two studies, all studies indicated that the cost per procedure was greater using single-use accessories/forceps. Future economic evaluations of single versus reusable accessories/forceps should include costs and also consequences of health and beyond, especially environmental impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12083358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: In many countries, single-use endoscopy accessories such as forceps have almost replaced their reusable counterparts. We reviewed the evidence on the broader economic cost and environmental impacts associated with single-use and multiple-use accessories for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes.

Design: Systematic review following the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 September 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included published economic evaluations on single-use and reusable GI endoscope accessories which were written in English.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data and quality-assessed identified studies according to the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

Results: Seven economic analyses were included: all were cost analyses. Three studies were from the USA, three from Europe and one from Korea. Patients in these studies underwent GI endoscopy (n=3), colonoscopy (n=2), gastroscopy (n=1) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n=1). All studies compared single-use with reusable accessories, of which six were forceps. Reprocessing and purchase costs were included in all studies, repair costs were included in three studies, and environmental impact was only considered in one study. Most studies (n=5) reported a higher cost per procedure associated with single-use accessories.

Conclusions: Apart from two studies, all studies indicated that the cost per procedure was greater using single-use accessories/forceps. Future economic evaluations of single versus reusable accessories/forceps should include costs and also consequences of health and beyond, especially environmental impact.

胃肠道内窥镜中一次性与多用途配件:经济评价的系统回顾。
目的:在许多国家,一次性使用的内窥镜配件,如镊子,几乎已经取代了可重复使用的配件。我们回顾了与胃肠道(GI)内窥镜的一次性和多用途配件相关的更广泛的经济成本和环境影响的证据。设计:按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目的报告指南进行系统评价。数据来源:检索时间为2000年1月1日至2024年9月25日,检索时间为MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane系统评价数据库。入选标准:我们纳入了已发表的关于一次性使用和可重复使用胃肠道内窥镜配件的经济评估,这些评估以英文撰写。数据提取和综合:两名独立审稿人根据《卫生经济学标准共识》核对表提取数据并对已确定的研究进行质量评估。结果:纳入7项经济分析,均为成本分析。三项研究来自美国,三项来自欧洲,一项来自韩国。在这些研究中,患者接受了胃肠道内镜检查(n=3)、结肠镜检查(n=2)、胃镜检查(n=1)和内镜逆行胆管造影(n=1)。所有的研究都比较了一次性使用和可重复使用的配件,其中6个是镊子。所有研究都包括了后处理和购买成本,三个研究包括了维修成本,只有一个研究考虑了环境影响。大多数研究(n=5)报告了与一次性配件相关的每次手术成本较高。结论:除了两项研究外,所有研究都表明使用一次性配件/镊子每次手术的成本更高。今后对单一配件/镊子与可重复使用配件/镊子的经济评价应包括成本以及健康和其他方面的后果,特别是环境影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信