Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29629586›Full record

ArticleThe bone & joint journal2018

Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

E Hansson, K Hagberg, M Cawson, T H Brodtkorb

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The bone & joint journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E HanssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 3, Gothenburg 413 90, Sweden and Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg 413 45, Sweden.
K HagbergUniversity of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 3, Gothenburg 413 90, Sweden and Advanced Reconstruction of Extremities and Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg 413 45, Sweden.
M CawsonRTI Health Solutions, The Pavilion, Towers Business Park, Wilmslow Road, Didsbury, Manchester M20 2LS, UK.
T H BrodtkorbRTI Health Solutions, Vällebergsv 9B, Ljungskile 459 30, Sweden.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with an osseointegrated percutaneous (OI-) prosthesis and a socket-suspended (S-) prosthesis for patients with a transfemoral amputation. Patients and Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the medical costs and changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) attributable to treatment of unilateral transfemoral amputation over a projected period of 20 years from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a prospective clinical study of 51 patients followed for two years. Results: OI-prostheses had an incremental cost per QALY gained of €83 374 compared with S-prostheses. The clinical improvement seen with OI-prostheses was reflected in QALYs gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility value for both treatment arms. The impact of an annual decline in utility values of 1%, 2%, and 3%, for patients with S-prostheses resulted in a cost per QALY gained of €37 020, €24 662, and €18 952, respectively, over 20 years. Conclusion: From a healthcare perspective, treatment with an OI-prosthesis results in improved quality of life at a relatively high cost compared with that for S-prosthesis. When patients treated with S-prostheses had a decline in quality of life over time, the cost per QALY gained by OI-prosthesis treatment was considerably reduced. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:527-34.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisOsseointegrationAdultAmputation, SurgicalArtificial LimbsFemaleFemurFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesProsthesis ImplantationQuality-Adjusted Life YearsArtificial limbCost benefit analysisProstheses and implantsTransfemoral amputation

Identifiers

PMID29629586
PMCPMC6503759
OpenAlexW2797751655

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.