ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2019
Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Factors leading to open revision surgery after trans-sacral canal plasty for lumbar spine disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- 3D-Printed Spine Models for Planning Staged Minimally Invasive Transverse Process Resections for Bertolotti Syndrome: Technical Note.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery.Global spine journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe field of spine surgery remains a unique target in the transition to value-based care. While spine surgery has benefited from new medical technologies, including minimally invasive surgery (MIS), these technologies may be a key driver in rising US healthcare costs. As such, MIS needs to clear an economic value threshold through a rigorous evaluation of the outcomes they provide and costs they incur. In this article, we review recent MIS surgery literature from the perspective of economic value. RECENT
findingsMany studies report modest all-in cost savings and direct procedural cost equivalence for minimally invasive approaches relative to open surgeries. In terms of quality, studies found lower blood loss, length of stay, and infectious complications with MIS surgery but evidence on QALYs was mixed. In the past 5 years, there has been increasing research interest in defining economic value in MIS surgery. However, a significant amount of heterogeneity in research quality and methodology persists. Therefore, MIS surgery has the potential to be of high economic value, though this is not yet definitive. Future research should continue to focus on high-quality cost-effectiveness studies with clear methodologies to further elucidate economic value in MIS surgery.
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.