Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33757393›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2021

Cost utility analysis of intramedullary nailing and skeletal traction treatment for patients with femoral shaft fractures in Malawi.

Linda Chokotho, Claire A Donnelley, Sven Young, Brian C Lau, Hao-Hua Wu, Nyengo Mkandawire, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Geir Hallan, Kiran J Agarwal-Harding, David Shearer

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Socioeconomic consequences of femoral shaft fracture for patients in Malawi.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Linda ChokothoDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Malawi.
Claire A DonnelleyInstitute for Global Orthopedics and Traumatology, Orthopedic Trauma Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sven YoungDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Malawi.
Brian C LauDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA.
Hao-Hua WuInstitute for Global Orthopedics and Traumatology, Orthopedic Trauma Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nyengo MkandawireDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Malawi.
Jan-Erik GjertsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Geir HallanDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Kiran J Agarwal-HardingHarvard Global Orthopaedics Collaborative, Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
David ShearerInstitute for Global Orthopedics and Traumatology, Orthopedic Trauma Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Bergen · NODuke University · USHaukeland University Hospital · NOKamuzu Central Hospital · MWMassachusetts General Hospital · USUniversity of Malawi · MW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - In Malawi, both skeletal traction (ST) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are used in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures, ST being the mainstay treatment. Previous studies have found that IMN has improved outcomes and is less expensive than ST. However, no cost-effectiveness analyses have yet compared IMN and ST in Malawi. We report the results of a cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing treatment using either IMN or ST.Patients and methods - This was an economic evaluation study, where a CUA was done using a decision-tree model from the government healthcare payer and societal perspectives with an 1-year time horizon. We obtained EQ-5D-3L utility scores and probabilities from a prospective observational study assessing quality of life and function in 187 adult patients with femoral shaft fractures treated with either IMN or ST. The patients were followed up at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-injury. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from utility scores using the area under the curve method. Direct treatment costs were obtained from a prospective micro costing study. Indirect costs included patient lost productivity, patient transportation, meals, and childcare costs associated with hospital stay and follow-up visits. Multiple sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainty.Results - Total treatment costs were higher for ST ($1,349) compared with IMN ($1,122). QALYs were lower for ST than IMN, 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.76) and 0.77 (CI 0.71-0.82) respectively. Based on lower cost and higher utility, IMN was the dominant strategy. IMN remained dominant in 94% of simulations. IMN would be less cost-effective than ST at a total procedure cost exceeding $880 from the payer's perspective, or $1,035 from the societal perspective.Interpretation - IMN was cost saving and more effective than ST in the treatment of adult femoral shaft fractures in Malawi, and may be an efficient use of limited healthcare resources.

Indexed as

AdultBone NailsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemoral FracturesFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumansMalawiTraction

Identifiers

PMID33757393
PMCPMC8428269
OpenAlexW3137564880

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.