Should We Use Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the Characterization of Nonpalpable Testicular Lesions? An Analysis from a Cost-Effectiveness Perspective.
Clicks: 433
ID: 59335
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
76.5
/100
433 views
304 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 5 articles by views in ultraschall in der medizin (stuttgart, germany : 1980)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Accurate characterization of testicular lesions is crucial to allow for correct treatment of malignant tumors and to avoid unnecessary procedures in benign ones. In recent years, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) proved to be superior in specifying the dignity of small, nonpalpable testicular lesions (< 1.5 cm) compared to native B-mode and color Doppler ultrasound which were previously regarded as the primary imaging method. However, the cost-effectiveness of CEUS has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CEUS as compared to unenhanced ultrasound for the characterization of nonpalpable testicular lesions. A decision model based on Markov simulations estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with unenhanced ultrasound and CEUS. Model input parameters were obtained from recent literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of diagnostic parameters and costs was performed. Also, probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo Modelling was applied. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100 000/QALY. In the base-case scenario, unenhanced ultrasound resulted in total costs of $5113.14 and an expected effectiveness of 8.29 QALYs, whereas CEUS resulted in total costs of $4397.77 with 8.35 QALYs. Therefore, the unenhanced ultrasound strategy was dominated by CEUS in the base-case scenario. Sensitivity analysis showed CEUS to be the cost-effective alternative along a broad range of costs. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a cost-effective imaging method for the characterization of nonpalpable testicular lesions.
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (42 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| Reference Key |
rubenthaler2019shouldultraschall
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Rübenthaler, Johannes;Kim, Su Hwan;Kunz, Wolfgang G;Sommer, Wieland H;Trottmann, Matthias;Clevert, Dirk-André;Froelich, Matthias Frank; |
| Journal | ultraschall in der medizin (stuttgart, germany : 1980) |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1055/a-1010-5955
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.