BACKGROUND: Acute bronchiolitis is a common reason for admission to the pediatric emergency department. Evidence has shown that most interventions do not change the natural course of the disease.
METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of the non-compliance with the acute bronchiolitis Portuguese national guideline. A retrospective study of pediatric emergency episodes of a Portuguese hospital that had a diagnosis of acute bronchiolitis during 2019, was conducted.
RESULTS: The sample included 344 emergency episodes. Non-compliance with the guideline occurred in 71.8% of the episodes, mostly due to unjustified treatment. Following guideline in the studied hospital for one year would have resulted in an estimated overall 76.6% cost reduction, with a reduction in mean direct costs per patient of 14.93 €, corresponding to a medium saving of 3.89 € for each patient and a reduction of 11.03 € for the Portuguese National Health Service. Analyzing the unjustified mean direct costs, of these 2.97 € were related to inpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic and the remaining 11.96 € were related to outpatient therapy. Mean direct costs imputed to the patient for outpatient treatment represented only 3.31 €, therefore most of mean direct costs is paid by the National Health Service.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with guideline would allow the reduction of total estimated costs by about 76.6%, representing a waste of resources, without compromising the quality of care provided. Most of the cost associated with non-compliance with the guideline is justified by outpatient therapy, 67% of which was paid by the National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model.
METHODS: The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question.
RESULTS: The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

The study aimed to assess the economic and quality of life burden of diabetic foot disorders and to identify disparities in the recommendations from guidelines and the current clinical practice across the EU5 (Spain, Italy, France, UK and Germany) countries. Literature search of electronic databases (MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) was undertaken. English language studies investigating economic and resource burden, quality of life and management of diabetic foot disease in the EU5 countries were included. Additionally, websites were screened for guidelines and current management practices in diabetic foot complication in EU5. Diabetic foot complications accounted for a total annual cost of €509m in the UK and €430 per diabetic patient in Germany, during 2001. The cost of diabetic foot complications increased with disease severity, with hospitalizations (41%) and amputation (9%) incurring 50% of the cost. Medical devices (orthopaedic shoes, shoe lifts and walking aids) were the most frequently utilized resources. Patients with diabetic foot complications experienced worsened quality of life, especially in those undergoing amputations and with non-healed ulcers or recurrent ulcers. Although guidelines advocate the use of multidisciplinary foot care teams, the utilization of multidisciplinary foot care teams was suboptimal. We conclude that diabetic foot disorders demonstrated substantial economic burden and have detrimental effect on quality of life, with more impairment in physical domain. Implementation of the guidelines and set-up of multidisciplinary clinics for holistic management of the diabetic foot disorders varies across Europe and remains suboptimal. Hence, guidelines need to be reinforced to prevent diabetic foot complications and to achieve limb salvage if complications are unpreventable.