Literature DB >> 19890180

Defining value in spine care.

Jeffrey A Rihn1, Sigurd Berven, Todd Allen, Frank M Phillips, Bradford L Currier, Steven D Glassman, David B Nash, Charles Mick, Alan Crockard, Todd J Albert.   

Abstract

Spinal disorders are extremely common, debilitating, and costly to the payer and to society as a whole. The rate and cost of various spinal treatments are increasing at an astonishing rate, but it is unclear whether the resulting quality of spinal care is improving. Rather than focusing solely on quality improvement measures or cost-saving measures, there is a recent emphasis on the value of health care. Defining the value of spine care depends on a standardized, accurate method of measuring outcomes and costs. It is important that the outcomes measured are patient centered and that both the outcomes and costs are measured over time with long-term follow-up. The purpose of this article is to review current methods for measuring outcomes and propose a means by which the value of spine care can be more clearly defined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19890180     DOI: 10.1177/1062860609349214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Qual        ISSN: 1062-8606            Impact factor:   1.852


  12 in total

Review 1.  Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Christoph P Hofstetter; Anna S Hofer; Michael Y Wang
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-03-18

Review 2.  Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

Authors:  O M Stokes; A A Cole; L M Breakwell; A J Lloyd; C M Leonard; M Grevitt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Santoshi S Indrakanti; Michael H Weber; Steven K Takemoto; Serena S Hu; David Polly; Sigurd H Berven
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christina L Goldstein; Kevin Macwan; Kala Sundararajan; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Value of single-level circumferential fusion: a 10-year prospective outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Glenn Buttermann; Sarah Hollmann; John-Michael Arpino; Nicole Ferko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Maciej Płaszewski; Josette Bettany-Saltikov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Cost-utility analysis modeling at 2-year follow-up for cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A single-center contribution to the randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel Warren; Tate Andres; Christian Hoelscher; Pedro Ricart-Hoffiz; John Bendo; Jeffrey Goldstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2013-12-01

8.  The Nijmegen decision tool for chronic low back pain. Development of a clinical decision tool for secondary or tertiary spine care specialists.

Authors:  Miranda L van Hooff; Jan van Loon; Jacques van Limbeek; Marinus de Kleuver
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Outcomes and complications of the midline anterior approach 3 years after lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Charla R Fischer; Brian Braaksma; Austin Peters; Jeffrey H Weinreb; Matthew Nalbandian; Jeffrey M Spivak; Anthony Petrizzo
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2014-12-22

10.  Economic Performance of Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLLIF) with a Focus on Hospital Throughput Efficiency.

Authors:  Hamid Abbasi; Christopher M Murphy
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2015-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.