P V Rajan1, Rameez A Qudsi2, G S M Dyer2, E Losina3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale. RESULTS: The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding. CONCLUSION: It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale. RESULTS: The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding. CONCLUSION: It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.
Authors: Andrew J Carr; Cushla D Cooper; Marion K Campbell; Jonathan L Rees; Jane Moser; David J Beard; Ray Fitzpatrick; Alastair Gray; Jill Dawson; Jacqueline Murphy; Hanne Bruhn; David Cooper; Craig R Ramsay Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Patrick Vavken; Patrick Sadoghi; Matthew Palmer; Claudio Rosso; Andreas M Mueller; Gregor Szoelloesy; Victor Valderrabano Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Mark A Vitale; Michael G Vitale; Joshua G Zivin; Jonathan P Braman; Louis U Bigliani; Evan L Flatow Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.019