Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924224›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Budget impact analysis of robotic exoskeleton use for locomotor training following spinal cord injury in four SCI Model Systems.

Daniel Pinto, Mauricio Garnier, Jason Barbas, Shuo-Hsiu Chang, Susan Charlifue, Edelle Field-Fote, Catherine Furbish, Candy Tefertiller, Chaithanya K Mummidisetty, Heather Taylor and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel PintoDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA. d.pinto@marquette.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5771-101X
Mauricio GarnierCollege of Nursing, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA.
Jason BarbasShirley Ryan Ability Lab, Chicago, USA.
Shuo-Hsiu ChangDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA.
Susan CharlifueSCI Research, Craig Hospital, Englewood, USA.
Edelle Field-FoteSpinal Cord Injury Research at the Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Catherine FurbishSpinal Cord Injury Research at the Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Candy TefertillerCraig Hospital, Englewood, USA.
Chaithanya K MummidisettyMax Nader Center for Rehabilitation Technologies & Outcomes Research, Chicago, USA.
Heather TaylorSpinal Cord Injury and Disability Research, TIRR Memorial Herman, Houston, USA.
Arun JayaramanOffice of Translational Research, Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, Chicago, USA.
Allen W HeinemannCenter for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Department of PM&R, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA.
Northwestern University · USCraig Hospital · USMarquette University · USEmory University · USMemorial Hermann Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Foundation · USShepherd Center · USShirley Ryan AbilityLab · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

ACL HHS 90SI5015ACL HHS 90SI5016ACL HHS 90SI5027National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 90SI5009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe know little about the budget impact of integrating robotic exoskeleton over-ground training into therapy services for locomotor training. The purpose of this study was to estimate the budget impact of adding robotic exoskeleton over-ground training to existing locomotor training strategies in the rehabilitation of people with spinal cord injury.

methodsA Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) was conducted using data provided by four Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Model Systems rehabilitation hospitals. Hospitals provided estimates of therapy utilization and costs about people with spinal cord injury who participated in locomotor training in the calendar year 2017. Interventions were standard of care walking training including body-weight supported treadmill training, overground training, stationary robotic systems (i.e., treadmill-based robotic gait orthoses), and overground robotic exoskeleton training. The main outcome measures included device costs, training costs for personnel to use the device, human capital costs of locomotor training, device demand, and the number of training sessions per person with SCI.

resultsRobotic exoskeletons for over-ground training decreased hospital costs associated with delivering locomotor training in the base case analysis. This analysis assumed no difference in intervention effectiveness across locomotor training strategies. Providing robotic exoskeleton overground training for 10% of locomotor training sessions over the course of the year (range 226-397 sessions) results in decreased annual locomotor training costs (i.e., net savings) between $1114 to $4784 per annum. The base case shows small savings that are sensitive to parameters of the BIA model which were tested in one-way sensitivity analyses, scenarios analyses, and probability sensitivity analyses. The base case scenario was more sensitive to clinical utilization parameters (e.g., how often devices sit idle and the substitution of high cost training) than device-specific parameters (e.g., robotic exoskeleton device cost or device life). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis simultaneously considered human capital cost, device cost, and locomotor device substitution. With probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the introduction of a robotic exoskeleton only remained cost saving for one facility.

conclusionsProviding robotic exoskeleton for over-ground training was associated with lower costs for the locomotor training of people with SCI in the base case analyses. The analysis was sensitive to parameter assumptions.

Indexed as

AdultExoskeleton DeviceFemaleHospital CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicNeurological RehabilitationSpinal Cord InjuriesBudget impact analysisEconomicLocomotor trainingRoboticsSpinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID31924224
PMCPMC6954546
OpenAlexW2999214656

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.