↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Costs of inguinal hernia repair associated with using different medical devices in the Czech Republic

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Costs of inguinal hernia repair associated with using different medical devices in the Czech Republic
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s112353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra Marešová, Matus Peteja, Milan Lerch, Pavel Zonca, Kamil Kuca

Abstract

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently carried out operations worldwide. The purpose of this article is to analyze the costs of hernia repair and to specify the loss or profit made under the conditions in the Czech Republic with respect to the currently used medical devices and approaches. This article is based on the Drummond and O'Brien methodology, which specifically determines the content of direct and indirect costs in health services. The costs of operations during the period 2010-2014 were specified for a total of 746 patients. The cost details are described for four patients who represent the use of different types of medical devices. The procedure was a laparoscopic surgery in all cases. The total costs of inguinal hernia repairs (as per 2015 currency conversion rate) are €1,248,579; only part is covered from public funds, resulting in a loss of €218,359 for the hospital. The obtained data indicate that this operation is unprofitable for hospitals under the present conditions. The loss in the subject facility amounts to 17% of the total cost, which is the cost incurred by the hospital in the Czech Republic. The study conducted in the Czech Republic refers to different economic results when using various medical device types. So the medical device selection depends on advantages or disadvantages for the patients, as well as on the cost effectiveness for the hospital.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Materials Science 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#926
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,521
of 332,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.