Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25572047›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2015

Cost-effectiveness of hip protector use on a geriatric ward in Germany: a Markov model.

B Stollenwerk, T Bartmus, F Klug, S Stock, D Müller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Hip protectors are cost-effective in the prevention of hip fractures in patients with high fracture risk.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

B StollenwerkHelmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany, bjoern.stollenwerk@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
T Bartmus
F Klug
S Stock
D Müller
Institute of Health Economics · CAUniversity of Cologne · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledIn this study, we determined the cost-effectiveness of hip protector use compared with no hip protector on a geriatric ward in Germany. From both the societal and the statutory health insurance (SHI) perspectives, the cost-effectiveness ratios for the provision of hip protectors were below <euro>12,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) even if unrelated costs in added life years were included.

introductionThe aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the provision of hip protectors compared with no hip protectors on a geriatric ward in Germany.

methodsA lifetime decision-analytic Markov model was developed. Costs were measured from the societal and from the statutory health insurance (SHI) perspectives and comprised direct medical, non-medical and unrelated costs in additional life years gained. Health outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To reflect several levels of uncertainty, first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) approaches were applied.

resultsHip protector use compared with no hip protector results in savings (costs, -5.1/QALYs, 0.003) for the societal perspective. For the SHI perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was <euro>4416 <euro>/QALY (costs, +13.4). If unrelated costs in life years gained were included, the cost-effectiveness ratio increases to <euro>9794/QALY for the societal perspective and to <euro>11,426/QALY for the SHI perspective. In the MCS, for the societal perspective without unrelated costs, 47 % of simulations indicated hip protectors to be cost saving (i.e. lower costs and higher effects).

conclusionAlthough the gain in QALYs due to the provision of providing hip protectors to patients on geriatric wards is small, all scenarios showed acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios or even savings.

Indexed as

Models, EconometricAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesFemaleGermanyHealth Care CostsHealth Services ResearchHip FracturesHumansMaleMarkov ChainsPatients' RoomsProtective DevicesQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID25572047
OpenAlexW2042242085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.