Literature DB >> 33408201

Choice between implants in knee replacement: protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis, analysis of joint registries and economic decision model to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knee implants for NHS patients-The KNee Implant Prostheses Study (KNIPS).

Elsa M R Marques1, Jane Dennis1, Andrew D Beswick2, Julian Higgins3,4, Howard Thom3,4, Nicky Welton3,4, Amanda Burston1, Linda Hunt1, Michael R Whitehouse1,4, Ashley W Blom1,4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Knee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Systematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient-public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adult orthopaedics; health economics; knee; statistics & research methods

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33408201      PMCID: PMC7789438          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  49 in total

Review 1.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy.

Authors:  Charles A Willis-Owen; Klaus Brust; Helen Alsop; Marisa Miraldo; Justin P Cobb
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Nicky J Welton; D M Caldwell; E Adamopoulos; K Vedhara
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions.

Authors:  David Lunn; David Spiegelhalter; Andrew Thomas; Nicky Best
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Patellar Resurfacing in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Colleen A Weeks; Jacquelyn D Marsh; Steven J MacDonald; Stephen Graves; Edward M Vasarhelyi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Choice of Prosthetic Implant Combinations in Total Hip Replacement: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using UK and Swedish Hip Joint Registries Data.

Authors:  Christopher G Fawsitt; Howard H Z Thom; Linda P Hunt; Szilard Nemes; Ashley W Blom; Nicky J Welton; William Hollingworth; José A López-López; Andrew D Beswick; Amanda Burston; Ola Rolfson; Goran Garellick; Elsa M R Marques
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe; Penny Sinner; Susan Mehle; Wenjun Ma; Kathleen K Killeen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Rebecca M Turner; Jonathan Davey; Mike J Clarke; Simon G Thompson; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-01

Review 10.  Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Edward Burn; Alexander D Liddle; Thomas W Hamilton; Sunil Pai; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2017-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.