Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus

Introduction Considering the rising global healthcare expenses, economic evaluations are more important than ever. Even though the number of studies regarding costs and cost-effectiveness is increasing, the quality of these studies remains relatively low. This is mainly caused by abundant heterogeneity in methods used for determining, calculating and reporting cost data, despite current general guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations. Disease-specific recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in the field of spine surgery, as complement to existing general guidelines, will ameliorate overall research quality, comparability and interpretability and thus, the overall quality. We aim to provide expert-based recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in spine surgery. Methods and analysis A modified Delphi study will be conducted to formulate expert-based recommendations. The following steps will be taken: (1) The conduct of a systematic review to identify relevant publications and identify relevant authors. Formation of an expert group and a Delphi-panel. (2) Drafting of statements based on articles included in the systematic literature review. Validation of drafted statements by the expert group. Step 2 can be repeated up to three times, statements can be discarded and adjusted in these rounds. Statements with more than 75% agreement will be accepted as consensus statements. (3) Validation of statements by the Delphi-panel. (4) Final recommendations. Ethics and dissemination The underlying work is based on existing literature and published data and does not include participation of patients, and thus does not require ethical review approval. The final recommendations are intended for (clinical) researchers in the field of cost-effectiveness in spine surgery. The Delphi method ensures that the final output reflects the opinions of international participants and gives insight in the adherence level to the recommendations. The aim is to reach uniformity in design, conduct and reporting of these studies, as is currently lacking. This will provide a solid basis to determine cost-effectiveness of spine surgeries and consequently aid to limit the rising healthcare costs. The findings of this study and the final recommendations will be disseminated in conferences and seminars and will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal

Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

Background: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.Methods: Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1: 2 propensity score matching.Results: Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7.7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11-4 and 13.6 per cent (P= 0-457), disease-free survival rates were 58-8 and 52.6 per cent (P= 0-175), and overall survival rates were 74-0 and 68-3 per cent (P= 0.231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23.9 versus 45.3 per cent; P < 0-001), especially in elderly patients (29.0 versus 57.9 per cent; P < 0-001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11.0 per cent (P= 0.432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59.6 per cent (P= 0-717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75.1 per cent (P= 0.529), respectively.Conclusion: Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients.Research into fetal development and medicin