Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

By Alison Catherine Murray, Tania Lourenco, Robyn De Verteuil, Rodolfo Andrés Hernández, Mary Fraser Fraser, Aileen Joyce McKinley, Zygmunt H. Krukowski, Luke David Vale and Adrian Maxwell Grant

Abstract

Peer reviewe

Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms, Laparoscopy, Health Technology Assessment, RC Internal medicine
Year: 2006
DOI identifier: 10.3310/hta10450
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/118
Journal:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://hdl.handle.net/2164/118 (external link)
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta1... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2001). 1 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a rapid and systematic
    2. (2006). 4 A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery. By Whiting
    3. (2005). 78 Clinical effectiveness Search strategies used to identify reports of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer MEDLINE (2000–May Week 1, 2005)/EMBASE (2000–Week 19,
    4. (1998). A review by
    5. (2005). Accessed
    6. (2001). Acute phase response in laparoscopic and open colectomy in colon cancer: randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum
    7. (2006). All rights reserved.
    8. (2006). All rights reserved. Appendix 11 Summary of included economic evaluations continued Study identification: Franks,
    9. (2006). All rights reserved. Appendix 6 List of included studies
    10. (2006). All rights reserved. Appendix 7 Detailed quality assessment score for each of the included studies Randomised controlled trials Study
    11. (2006). All rights reserved. Appendix 8 Characteristics of included studies Appendix 8 106 R an do m is ed c on tr ol le d tr ia ls p ub lis he d fr om
    12. (2006). All rights reserved. No. 34 A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. By MacLehose
    13. (2006). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls Pa rt ic ip an t ch ar ac te ri st ic s In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r In te rv en ti on p op ul at io n C om pa ra to r po pu la ti on Out co m es ch ar ac te ri st ic s ch ar ac te ri st ic s H as eg aw a,
    14. (2006). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls Pa rt ic ip an t ch ar ac te ri st ic s In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r In te rv en ti on p op ul at io n C om pa ra to r po pu la ti on Out co m es ch ar ac te ri st ic s ch ar ac te ri st ic s Leu ng ,
    15. (2006). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls Pa rt ic ip an t ch ar ac te ri st ic s In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r In te rv en ti on p op ul at io n C om pa ra to r po pu la ti on Out co m es ch ar ac te ri st ic s ch ar ac te ri st ic s Mils om ,
    16. (2006). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls Pa rt ic ip an t ch ar ac te ri st ic s In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r In te rv en ti on p op ul at io n C om pa ra to r po pu la ti on Out co m es ch ar ac te ri st ic s ch ar ac te ri st ic s S ta ge ,
    17. (2006). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls Pa rt ic ip an t ch ar ac te ri st ic s In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r In te rv en ti on p op ul at io n C om pa ra to r po pu la ti on Out co m es ch ar ac te ri st ic s ch ar ac te ri st ic s Zho u,
    18. (2006). All rights reserved. Volume 9,
    19. Assessm ent 2006;Vol. 10: N o. 48 Evaluation of the ventricular assist device program m
    20. authors would like to know your views about this report.
    21. (2001). Cellular and humoral inflammatory response after laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc
    22. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group. Short-term qualityof-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial.
    23. (2005). Conversion does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results from a multicenter prospective randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:637–8. CLASICC,
    24. (2006). e in the U K Evaluation of the ventricular assist device programme in the UK doi
    25. (1997). Inflammatory response after laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections – results of a prospective randomized trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2000;385:2–9. Stage,
    26. Influence of laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resection on postoperative quality of life. Zentralbl Chir 1998;123:483–90. Schwenk
    27. Laparoscopic assisted colectomy (LAC) for colon cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial.
    28. (2004). Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy is associated with a disease-free survival advantage for patients with advanced stage nonmetastatic colon cancer. Evid-based Gastroenterol 2002;3:96–8. Leung,
    29. Laparoscopically assisted colectomy is as safe and effective as open colectomy in people with colon cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2004;30:707–9. Stocchi
    30. (1998). Lymphocyte subsets and natural killer cell cytotoxicity after laparoscopically assisted resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1305–10. Milsom,
    31. (2005). NHS Health and Social Care Cancer Information Services URL: http://www.icservices.nhs.uk/cancer/pages/ dataset/.
    32. (2006). No. 1 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease. By Loveman E,
    33. (1998). Port site metastases and recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy. A randomized trial. Surg Endosc
    34. (1998). Postoperative pain and fatigue after laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections. A prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc
    35. (2001). Randomized clinical trial of the effect of open versus laparoscopically assisted colectomy on systemic immunity in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88:801–7. Vignali,
    36. (2005). Review: Colorectal cancer Comparison: 01 Laparoscopic repair vs Conventional open repair Outcome: 06 Wound infection Study or subcategory Lapa roscopic N/n Ope n N/n RR (fixed) 95% CI RR (fixed) (95%
    37. (2000). Review: Colorectal cancer Comparison: 01 Laparoscopic repair vs Conventional open repair Outcome: 10 Overall survival Study or subcategory Lapa roscopic N/n Ope n N/n RR (fixed) 95% CI RR (fixed) (95%
    38. (1995). Short-term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc
    39. (2006). Specify Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3 Overall Age (years) Sex (M/F) Body Weight (kg) Follow-up period: Number of patients lost to follow-up: Comments: Location of cancer
    40. (2005). Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 26 (Laparoscopic), 17 (Open) Test for heterogeneity:
    41. (2005). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    42. (2004). Systemic and peritoneal angiogenic response after laparoscopic or conventional colon resection in cancer patients: a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:1670–4. COST,
    43. (2003). Systemic and peritoneal inflammatory response after laparoscopic or conventional colon resection in cancer patients. Dis Colon Rectum
    44. (2004). What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke? By
    45. (2002). Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Surg Endosc

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.