BACKGROUND: The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.

/pdf/surgical-approach-to-hysterectomy-for-benign-gynaecological-55zzlqsjex.pdf

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

In trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis baseline mean utility values are invariably imbalanced between treatment arms. A patient's baseline utility is likely to be highly correlated with their quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the follow-up period, not least because it typically contributes to the QALY calculation. Therefore, imbalance in baseline utility needs to be accounted for in the estimation of mean differential QALYs, and failure to control for this imbalance can result in a misleading incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. This paper discusses the approaches that have been used in the cost-effectiveness literature to estimate absolute and differential mean QALYs alongside randomised trials, and illustrates the implications of baseline mean utility imbalance for QALY calculation. Using data from a recently conducted trial-based cost-effectiveness study and a micro-simulation exercise, the relative performance of alternative estimators is compared, showing that widely used methods to calculate differential QALYs provide incorrect results in the presence of baseline mean utility imbalance regardless of whether these differences are formally statistically significant. It is demonstrated that multiple regression methods can be usefully applied to generate appropriate estimates of differential mean QALYs and an associated measure of sampling variability, while controlling for differences in baseline mean utility between treatment arms in the trial.

Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis : the importance of controlling for baseline utility

Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003.

Objectives In this monograph we examine the added value of new psychometric methods (Rasch measurement and Item Response Theory) over traditional psychometric approaches by comparing and contrasting their psychometric evaluations of existing sets of rating scale data. We have concentrated on Rasch measurement rather than Item Response Theory because we believe that it is the more advantageous method for health measurement from a conceptual, theoretical and practical perspective. Our intention is to provide an authoritative document that describes the principles of Rasch measurement and the practice of Rasch analysis in a clear, detailed, non-technical form that is accurate and accessible to clinicians and researchers in health measurement. Review methods A comparison was undertaken of traditional and new psychometric methods in five large sets of rating scale data: (1) evaluation of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in data from 666 participants in the Cannabis in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) study; (2) evaluation of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) in data from 1725 people with multiple sclerosis; (3) evaluation of test-retest reliability of MSIS-29 in data from 150 people with multiple sclerosis; (4) examination of the use of Rasch analysis to equate scales purporting to measure the same health construct in 585 people with multiple sclerosis; and (5) comparison of relative responsiveness of the Barthel Index and Functional Independence Measure in data from 1400 people undergoing neurorehabilitation. Results Both Rasch measurement and Item Response Theory are conceptually and theoretically superior to traditional psychometric methods. Findings from each of the five studies show that Rasch analysis is empirically superior to traditional psychometric methods for evaluating rating scales, developing rating scales, analysing rating scale data, understanding and measuring stability and change, and understanding the health constructs we seek to quantify. Conclusions There is considerable added value in using Rasch analysis rather than traditional psychometric methods in health measurement. Future research directions include the need to reproduce our findings in a range of clinical populations, detailed head-to-head comparisons of Rasch analysis and Item Response Theory, and the application of Rasch analysis to clinical practice.

https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2001725

Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods.

OBJECTIVES To review, and to develop further, the methods used to assess and to increase the generalisability of economic evaluation studies. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS Methodological studies relating to economic evaluation in healthcare were searched. This included electronic searches of a range of databases, including PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit, and manual searches of key journals. The case studies of a decision analytic model involved highlighting specific features of previously published economic studies related to generalisability and location-related variability. The case-study involving the secondary analysis of cost-effectiveness analyses was based on the secondary analysis of three economic studies using data from randomised trials. RESULTS The factor most frequently cited as generating variability in economic results between locations was the unit costs associated with particular resources. In the context of studies based on the analysis of patient-level data, regression analysis has been advocated as a means of looking at variability in economic results across locations. These methods have generally accepted that some components of resource use and outcomes are exchangeable across locations. Recent studies have also explored, in cost-effectiveness analysis, the use of tests of heterogeneity similar to those used in clinical evaluation in trials. The decision analytic model has been the main means by which cost-effectiveness has been adapted from trial to non-trial locations. Most models have focused on changes to the cost side of the analysis, but it is clear that the effectiveness side may also need to be adapted between locations. There have been weaknesses in some aspects of the reporting in applied cost-effectiveness studies. These may limit decision-makers' ability to judge the relevance of a study to their specific situations. The case study demonstrated the potential value of multilevel modelling (MLM). Where clustering exists by location (e.g. centre or country), MLM can facilitate correct estimates of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results, and also a means of estimating location-specific cost-effectiveness. The review of applied economic studies based on decision analytic models showed that few studies were explicit about their target decision-maker(s)/jurisdictions. The studies in the review generally made more effort to ensure that their cost inputs were specific to their target jurisdiction than their effectiveness parameters. Standard sensitivity analysis was the main way of dealing with uncertainty in the models, although few studies looked explicitly at variability between locations. The modelling case study illustrated how effectiveness and cost data can be made location-specific. In particular, on the effectiveness side, the example showed the separation of location-specific baseline events and pooled estimates of relative treatment effect, where the latter are assumed exchangeable across locations. CONCLUSIONS A large number of factors are mentioned in the literature that might be expected to generate variation in the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions across locations. Several papers have demonstrated differences in the volume and cost of resource use between locations, but few studies have looked at variability in outcomes. In applied trial-based cost-effectiveness studies, few studies provide sufficient evidence for decision-makers to establish the relevance or to adjust the results of the study to their location of interest. Very few studies utilised statistical methods formally to assess the variability in results between locations. In applied economic studies based on decision models, most studies either stated their target decision-maker/jurisdiction or provided sufficient information from which this could be inferred. There was a greater tendency to ensure that cost inputs were specific to the target jurisdiction than clinical parameters. Methods to assess generalisability and variability in economic evaluation studies have been discussed extensively in the literature relating to both trial-based and modelling studies. Regression-based methods are likely to offer a systematic approach to quantifying variability in patient-level data. In particular, MLM has the potential to facilitate estimates of cost-effectiveness, which both reflect the variation in costs and outcomes between locations and also enable the consistency of cost-effectiveness estimates between locations to be assessed directly. Decision analytic models will retain an important role in adapting the results of cost-effectiveness studies between locations. Recommendations for further research include: the development of methods of evidence synthesis which model the exchangeability of data across locations and allow for the additional uncertainty in this process; assessment of alternative approaches to specifying multilevel models to the analysis of cost-effectiveness data alongside multilocation randomised trials; identification of a range of appropriate covariates relating to locations (e.g. hospitals) in multilevel models; and further assessment of the role of econometric methods (e.g. selection models) for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside observational datasets, and to increase the generalisability of randomised trials.

Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.

Objective To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial. Design Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials. Setting 28 UK centres and two South African centres. Participants 1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications. Results In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = Conclusions Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7432/129.full.pdf

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy.

Objectives To test the null hypothesis of no significant difference between laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), abdominal hysterectomy (AH) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with regard to each of the outcome measures of the trial, and also to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. Design Patients were allocated to either the vaginal or abdominal trial by the individual surgeon according to their usual clinical practice. After allocation patients were then randomised to receive either LH or the default procedure in an unbalanced 2:1 manner. Setting Forty-three surgeons from 28 centres throughout the UK and two centres in South Africa took part in the study. Participants Patients with gynaecological symptoms that, in the opinion of the gynaecologist and the patient, justified hysterectomy. Interventions Of 1380 patients recruited to the study, 876 were included in the AH trial and 504 in the VH trial. In the AH trial, 584 patients had a laparoscopic type of hysterectomy (designated ALH) and 292 had a standard AH. In the VH trial 336 had a VLH and 168 had a standard VH. A cost--utility analysis was undertaken based on a 1-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EQ-5D. Results Compared with AH, LH was associated with a higher rate of major complications, less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay, but took longer to perform. Securing the ovarian pedicles with laparoscopic sutures was used in only 7% of cases but was associated with 25% of the complications. At the 6 weeks postoperative point, ALH was associated with a significantly better physical component of the SF-12 (QoL questionnaire), better body image scale scores and a significantly increased frequency of sexual intercourse than AH. These differences were not observed at either 4 or 12 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in any measured outcome between LH and VH except that VLH took longer to perform and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology. Compared with VH, VLH had a higher mean cost per patient of GBP401 and higher mean QALYs of 0.0015, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of GBP267,333. The probability that VLH is cost-effective was less than 50% for a large range of willingness to pay values for an additional QALY. Compared with AH, ALH had a higher mean cost per patient of GBP186 and higher mean QALYs of 0.007, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of GBP26,571. Conclusions ALH is associated with a significantly higher risk of major complications and takes longer to perform than AH. ALH is, however, associated with less pain, quicker recovery and better short-term QoL after surgery than AH. The cost-effectiveness of ALH is finely balanced and is also influenced by the choice of reusable versus disposable equipment. Individual surgeons must decide between patient-orientated benefits and the risk of severe complications. VLH was not cost-effective relative to VH. Recommendations for future research include the application and relevance of QoL measures following hysterectomy, and long-term follow-up; patient preferences; reducing complication rates; improving gynaecological surgical training; surgeon effect in surgery trials; care pathways for hysterectomy; additional pathology identification in LH and meta-analysis/further trial of VH versus LH.

/pdf/evaluate-hysterectomy-trial-a-multicentre-randomised-trial-3d5hxks1gm.pdf

EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy.

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal). Design Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n =
163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286). Participants 1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy. Main outcome measure One year costs estimated from NHS
perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women9s responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks9 follow up. Results Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of £401 ($708; €571) more (95% confidence interval £271 to £542) than vaginal hysterectomy but produced little difference in mean QALYs (0.0015, -0.015 to 0.018). Mean differences in cost and QALYs generated an incremental cost per QALY gained of £267 333 ($471 789; €380 437). The probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of £186 ($328; € 265) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95% confidence intervals crossed zero (-£26 to £375); there was little difference in mean QALYs (0.007, -0.008 to 0.023), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of £26 571 ($46 893;
€37 813). If the NHS is willing to pay £30 000 for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%. Conclusions Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7432/134.full.pdf

Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial

Psychometric properties of the Body Image Scale in women with benign gynaecological conditions

Objectives To assess the potential source of variation that surgeon may add to patient outcome in a clinical trial of surgical procedures.



Methods  Two large (n = 1380) parallel multicentre randomized surgical trials were undertaken to compare laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy with conventional methods of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy; involving 43 surgeons. The primary end point of the trial was the occurrence of at least one major complication. Patients were nested within surgeons giving the data set a hierarchical structure. A total of 10% of patients had at least one major complication, that is, a sparse binary outcome variable. A linear mixed logistic regression model (with logit link function) was used to model the probability of a major complication, with surgeon fitted as a random effect. Models were fitted using the method of maximum likelihood in SAS®.



Results  There were many convergence problems. These were resolved using a variety of approaches including; treating all effects as fixed for the initial model building; modelling the variance of a parameter on a logarithmic scale and centring of continuous covariates. The initial model building process indicated no significant ‘type of operation’ across surgeon interaction effect in either trial, the ‘type of operation’ term was highly significant in the abdominal trial, and the ‘surgeon’ term was not significant in either trial.



Conclusions  The analysis did not find a surgeon effect but it is difficult to conclude that there was not a difference between surgeons. The statistical test may have lacked sufficient power, the variance estimates were small with large standard errors, indicating that the precision of the variance estimates may be questionable.

Jayne Fountain

Papers

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy.

EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy.

Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial

Psychometric properties of the Body Image Scale in women with benign gynaecological conditions

A practical approach to a multi‐level analysis with a sparse binary outcome within a large surgical trial