OBJECTIVES : To evaluate the quality of the literature that reports costs and resource utilization related to robotic-assisted surgery for radical prostatectomy.

METHODS : Systematic searches were conducted using the databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase for robotic studies published from January 1, 2004 to December 3, 2018. Studies that reported costs pertaining to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy were included in the review. Using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) published in 2013 with the medical device specific recommendations from Tarricone et al. 2017, we evaluated the quality of the methodology of included studies.

RESULTS : Forty-nine studies (46 peer-reviewed publications, and 3 health technology assessments) were included in the review. None of the included studies fulfilled all criteria. “Background and objectives”, “Target population and subgroups” and “Setting and Location” were described in all studies. Forty-eight studies clearly indicated the source of cost estimates and 43 studies compared robotic costs to other surgical methods. Fifteen studies explicitly stated the study perspective. Although not always explicitly stated, most studies reported costs based on a hospital perspective. Reference to medical device features in primary or sensitivity analysis was limited (purchase and maintenance in 16 studies, learning curve in 8 studies, incremental innovation in 3 studies, and dynamic pricing in 1 study). The overall quality did not change after the publication of the CHEERS guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS : Adherence to CHEERS guideline is suboptimal among included costing literature, with even poorer adherence to medical device specific recommendations. These limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. Future studies should adopt the CHEERS guidelines to provide a measure of study quality.