ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2021
Cost of Revision Total Knee Replacement: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Physician and patient perceptions of surgical procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee in the United States, Europe, and Japan: results of a real-world study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
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
backgroundA major limitation of total knee replacement (TKR), as with other joint replacements, is the risk of revision. Revision TKR is associated with high risk and economic burden to patients, healthcare providers, and societies. It will be worthwhile to assess the economic burden of revision TKR across countries or different study settings. This study aims to review the literature on the cost of revision TKR to assess costs across countries and studies, estimate a pooled cost estimate for homogenous data, and identify major cost components that contribute to the cost burden.
methodsWe will conduct a search of the MEDLINE (OvidSp), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies, and will use an optimally designed search approach to search for relevant studies. EndNote library will be used to manage the searched studies. Selection will be undertaken in two phases-screening and eligibility. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias will be performed in duplicate, after which the data will be analysed narratively and a meta-analysis performed for homogenous studies, if possible. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides a proposed stepwise plan for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cost of revision TKR. Findings from this systematic review will provide information about the cost across settings and identify the major cost drivers of revision TKR, which will, in turn, stimulate efforts to minimize the cost. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020171988.
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.