ArticleThe Journal of hand surgery2009
Population-based utilities for upper extremity functions in the setting of tetraplegia.
Article in The Journal of hand surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- Identifying barriers to upper extremity reconstruction in tetraplegia: a systematic scoping review.Spinal cord · 2021Article
- The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePeople with tetraplegia face substantial physical and financial hardships. Although upper extremity reconstruction has been advocated for people with tetraplegia, these procedures are markedly underused in the United States. Population-based preference evaluation of upper extremity reconstruction is important to quantify the value of these reconstructive procedures. This study sought to establish the preferences for 3 health states: tetraplegia, tetraplegia with corrected pinch function, and tetraplegia with corrected elbow extension function.
methodsA computer-based, time trade-off survey was administered to a cohort of 81 able-bodied second-year medical students who served as a surrogate for the general public. This survey instrument has undergone pilot testing and has established face validity to evaluate the 3 health states of interest. Utilities were calculated based on an estimated 20 years of remaining life.
resultsThe mean utility for the tetraplegic health state was low. On average, respondents gave up 10.8 +/- 5.0 out of a hypothetical 20 years for perfect health, for a utility of tetraplegia equal to 0.46. For recovery of pinch function, respondents gave up an average of 6.5 +/- 4.3 years, with a corresponding health utility of 0.68. For recovery of elbow extension function, respondents gave up an average of 7.6 +/- 4.5 years, with a corresponding health utility of 0.74.
conclusionsThis study established the preferences for 2 upper extremity surgical interventions: tetraplegia with pinch and tetraplegia with elbow extension. The findings from this study place a high value on upper-limb reconstructive procedures with tetraplegia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.