Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrauer, Carmen A.
dc.contributor.authorRosen, Allison B.
dc.contributor.authorOlchanski, Natalia V.
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Peter J.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:44.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:18:05Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:18:05Z
dc.date.issued2005-06-03
dc.date.submitted2011-01-14
dc.identifier.citationThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1253-1259. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02152. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02152">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0021-9355 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.2106/JBJS.D.02152
dc.identifier.pmid15930533
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47779
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature. METHODS: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis. RESULTS: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15930533&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.rights© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
dc.subjectArthroplasty, Replacement
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectOrthopedic Procedures
dc.subjectPeriodicals as Topic
dc.subjectQuality-Adjusted Life Years
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titleCost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
dc.source.volume87
dc.source.issue6
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&amp;context=qhs_pp&amp;unstamped=1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/897
dc.identifier.contextkey1729431
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-23T17:18:06Z
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature.</p> <p>METHODS: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis.</p> <p>RESULTS: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/897
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages1253-9


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
JBJS_1253.pdf
Size:
166.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record