In response to Mobile Stroke Units - Cost-Effective or Just an Expensive Hype?
In their review, Walter et al. highlight an important point about the economic evidence to support the use of mobile stroke units. While it has been demonstrated that mobile stroke units (MSU) improve the provision of acute therapies, the evidence for cost-effectiveness is not as strong .
Two major limitations of the cost-effectiveness analyses of mobile stroke units (MSUs) conducted to date were discussed [2, 3]. The first reflected that the estimated health benefits were not based on prospectively collected data from participants treated in the respective MSU. Rather, the health benefits were estimated by applying expected benefits of additional treatment and time to treatment based on the findings of published literature. Secondly, these studies did not include the additional benefits of avoiding secondary transfers that often occur after patients are determined to be eligible for procedures, such as clot retrieval or surgical intervention for intracerebral...
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Cadilhac DA, Rajan SS and Kim J declare no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
- 5.Zhao H, Coote S, Pesavento L, et al. Prehospital idarucizumab prior to intravenous thrombolysis in a mobile stroke unit. Int J Stroke. 2018:1747493018790081.Google Scholar