Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31086273›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2019

Understanding and modelling the economic impact of spinal cord injuries in the United Kingdom.

David McDaid, A-La Park, Angela Gall, Mariel Purcell, Mark Bacon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Development and Evaluation of a Persian-Language Self-Management Mobile Application for People With Spinal Cord Injury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

David McDaidPersonal Social Services Research Unit, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. d.mcdaid@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0744-2664
A-La ParkPersonal Social Services Research Unit, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-4874
Angela GallLondon Spinal Cord Injury Centre, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
Mariel PurcellQueen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Mark BaconSpinal Research, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designEconomic modelling analysis.

objectivesTo determine lifetime direct and indirect costs from initial hospitalisation of all expected new traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCI) over 12 months.

settingUnited Kingdom (UK).

methodsIncidence-based approach to assessing costs from a societal perspective, including immediate and ongoing health, rehabilitation and long-term care directly attributable to SCI, as well as aids and adaptations, unpaid informal care and participation in employment. The model accounts for differences in injury severity, gender, age at onset and life expectancy.

resultsLifetime costs for an expected 1270 new cases of SCI per annum conservatively estimated as £1.43 billion (2016 prices). This equates to a mean £1.12 million (median £0.72 million) per SCI case, ranging from £0.47 million (median £0.40 million) for an AIS grade D injury to £1.87 million (median £1.95 million) for tetraplegia AIS A-C grade injuries. Seventy-one percent of lifetime costs potentially are paid by the public purse with remaining costs due to reduced employment and carer time.

conclusionsDespite the magnitude of costs, and being comparable with international estimates, this first analysis of SCI costs in the UK is likely to be conservative. Findings are particularly sensitive to the level and costs of long-term home and residential care. The analysis demonstrates how modelling can be used to highlight economic impacts of SCI rapidly to policymakers, illustrate how changes in future patterns of injury influence costs and help inform future economic evaluations of actions to prevent and/or reduce the impact of SCIs.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31086273
PMCPMC6760568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.