Cited by 22Reproductive Health and ContraceptionHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeReproductive System and Pregnancy

Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss

Dalton, Vanessa K., Liang, Angela, Hutton, David W., Zochowski, Melissa K., Fendrick, A. Mark·2015·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to estimate the economic consequences of expanding options for early pregnancy loss (EPL) treatment beyond expectant management and operating room surgical evacuation (usual care).Study design We constructed a decision model using a hypothetical cohort of women undergoing EPL management within a 30 day horizon. Treatment options under the usual care arm include expectant management and surgical uterine evacuation in an operating room (OR). Treatment options under the expanded care arm included all evidence-based safe and effective treatment options for EPL: expectant management, misoprostol treatment, surgical uterine evacuation in an office setting, and surgical uterine evacuation in an OR. Probabilities of entering various treatment pathways were based on previously published observational studies.Results The cost per case was US $241.29 lower for women undergoing treatment in the expanded care model as compared with the usual care model (US $1033.29 per case vs US $1274.58 per case, expanded care and usual care, respectively). The model was the most sensitive to the failure rate of the expectant management arm, the cost of the OR surgical procedure, the proportion of women undergoing an OR surgical procedure under usual care, and the additional cost per patient associated with implementing and using the expanded care model.Conclusion This study demonstrates that expanding women's treatment options for EPL beyond what is typically available can result in lower direct medical expenditures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.031

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dalton, V. K., Liang, A., Hutton, D. W., Zochowski, M. K., & Fendrick, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Dalton, Vanessa K.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
212
Issue
2
Pages
177.e1-177.e6
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092606933
Cited by
22
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
Keywords
early pregnancy loss, miscarriage treatment, expectant management, misoprostol, cost analysis, cost per case
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Spontaneous, Ambulatory Surgical Procedures, Dilatation and Curettage, Female, Humans, Operating Rooms, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Misoprostol, Health Care Costs, Models, Economic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Watchful Waiting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review