Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34150325›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2021

Understanding cost-utility analysis studies in the trauma and orthopaedic surgery literature.

Achi Kamaraj, Nikhil Agarwal, K T Matthew Seah, Wasim Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Achi KamarajSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4939-7577
Nikhil AgarwalDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
K T Matthew SeahDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5850-125X
Wasim KhanDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies are becoming increasingly important due to the need to reduce healthcare spending, especially in the field of trauma and orthopaedics.There is an increasing need for trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to understand these economic evaluations to ensure informed cost-effective decisions can be made to benefit the patient and funding body.This review discusses the fundamental principles required to understand CUA studies in the literature, including a discussion of the different methods employed to assess the health outcomes associated with different management options and the various approaches used to calculate the costs involved.Different types of model design may be used to conduct a CUA which can be broadly categorized into real-life clinical studies and computer-simulated modelling. We discuss the main types of study designs used within each category. We also cover the different types of sensitivity analysis used to quantify uncertainty in these studies and the commonly employed instruments used to assess the quality of CUAs. Finally, we discuss some of the important limitations of CUAs that need to be considered.This review outlines the main concepts required to understand the CUA literature and provides a basic framework for their future conduct. Cite this article:

Indexed as

cost-utility analysisdecision treeincremental cost-utility ratioquality-adjusted life yearsquality of health economic studiessensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID34150325
PMCPMC8183147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.