Cost-effectiveness of mohs micrographic surgery vs surgical excision for basal cell carcinoma of the face-reply

In reply With regard to the comments about the 5 possible forms of bias, we would like to refer to the elaborate answer our clinical investigators already gave (see reference 1 herein) to remarks that were identical to those Otley has now made. In our study we used the microcosting method, which is a detailed inventory and measurement of the resources used. The main advantage of this method is that it allows others to see how well the analysis matches their own situation where patterns of care may differ.2 As concerns the pathology costs, it makes clear that the pattern of care in our study differs from that in the United States with regard to the specific professional who performs the pathology analysis. However, this difference (ie, using a separate pathologist) does not automatically lead to an increase in total costs for MMS. After all, it is important to . . . [Full text of this article

Do Patients' and Physicians' Perspectives Differ on Preferences for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Treatment?

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent disorder of gut-brain interaction and poses a significant burden to patients. Pharmacotherapy, diet, and psychotherapy all have largely comparable clinical efficacy. Therefore, factors outside efficacy can have an important impact in determining preferences for a specific therapeutic entity. The aim of this study was to compare the patient and physician perspectives and identify important treatment characteristics regarding the management of IBS. Semistructured interviews were performed among IBS patients (n = 8), fulfilling the Rome IV criteria, and surveys were sent to physicians involved in IBS care (n = 15). Nine important treatment characteristics were revealed: effectiveness, time until response, cessation of response, side effects, location, waiting period, treatment burden, frequency of healthcare appointments, and willingness to pay. Time to response, location, and waiting time were less important for patients compared to physicians. This study assessed important IBS treatment characteristics and provided context to preferences from a patient and physician perspective. These data could be relevant during shared decision-making in clinical practice

Do Patients’ and Physicians’ Perspectives Differ on Preferences for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Treatment?

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent disorder of gut–brain interaction and poses a significant burden to patients. Pharmacotherapy, diet, and psychotherapy all have largely comparable clinical efficacy. Therefore, factors outside efficacy can have an important impact in determining preferences for a specific therapeutic entity. The aim of this study was to compare the patient and physician perspectives and identify important treatment characteristics regarding the management of IBS. Semistructured interviews were performed among IBS patients (n = 8), fulfilling the Rome IV criteria, and surveys were sent to physicians involved in IBS care (n = 15). Nine important treatment characteristics were revealed: effectiveness, time until response, cessation of response, side effects, location, waiting period, treatment burden, frequency of healthcare appointments, and willingness to pay. Time to response, location, and waiting time were less important for patients compared to physicians. This study assessed important IBS treatment characteristics and provided context to preferences from a patient and physician perspective. These data could be relevant during shared decision-making in clinical practice. </jats:p

Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists’ preferences regarding the two interventions. The study’s aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques. Methods This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. Results For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision. Conclusions Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist’s own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure. </jats:sec

Gynecologists' perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester

Introduction and hypothesis The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists' preferences regarding the two interventions. The study's aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques. Methods This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. Results For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision. Conclusions Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist's own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure