Skip to main content

Table 1 Review in- and exclusion criteria

From: Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

PICOS

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Population

Patients from any country undergoing elective surgery

Patients undergoing emergency surgery or non-surgical treatments (e.g. chemotherapy)

Intervention

A preoperative prehabilitation programme (any setting), defined as a (set of) intervention(s) aimed at optimising functioning and reducing disability in individuals awaiting surgery. The intervention(s) had to include at least one component of physio- or occupational therapy and at least one in-person meeting between the patient(s) and health care professional(s). The ‘dose’, i.e. the programme’s duration (overall and per session) and frequency, had to be sufficiently longa to have an effect if the patients fully adhered to it

Purely medical/nutritional interventions, an intervention combined with additional postoperative rehabilitation, cognitive behaviour therapy or health counselling/education alone, purely web/app-based prehabilitation programmes

Control

Usual preoperative care as defined by the study authors, i.e. the routine care that patients with a given condition receive in the respective hospital (extended only by the baseline measurements performed as part of the trial)

Another prehabilitation intervention; no comparator

Outcome

Clinical effectiveness and costs, any timeframe for follow-up

Clinical effectiveness only

Study type

Full (i.e. cost–benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses) or partial economic evaluations (i.e. cost-minimization analysis), trial-basedb or model-based economic evaluations regardless of their statusc, cost perspective, publication year, language and type (i.e. full article, conference abstract)

Systematic reviews, simple, non-comparative cost analyses (i.e. studies that only calculated the costs of the intervention), commentaries/letters, animal studies

  1. aAs judged by a physiotherapist (JK), based on current evidence on exercise efficacy and duration
  2. b We included trial-based economic evaluations based on randomised controlled trials as well as non-randomised studies of interventions, as we expected that the latter would provide valuable additional evidence, e.g. from a real-world setting. If a group in a multi-arm study did not meet the inclusion criteria, we included the study but not the group
  3. c We included ongoing studies, i.e. protocols and registration records, as we were interested in their methods