ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2022
Price Transparency and Consumer Perceptions of Generic and Brand-name Implants in Orthopaedic Surgery.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06343467 (Generic Volar Locking Plate Use in Distal Radius Fractures), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Generic Volar Locking Plate Use in Distal Radius Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Study to Evaluate Clinical Outcomes and Cost Reduction
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some have suggested the use of generic surgical implants to curb rising costs of orthopaedic care. However, there is evidence that patients are reluctant to use generic pharmaceuticals as compared to their brand name equivalents for fear of inferior quality. Public perception of the use of generic implants remains unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using Amazon MTurk to identify factors associated with a consumer preference for generic orthopaedic screws and total hip. Results: While much of the public (52%) sees the value of generic implants, fewer (26%) would prefer them in their own care. Most respondents (75%) trust their surgeon's choice, yet the vast majority (83%) want to be informed about the cost of their implant, even if it makes no difference in what they pay. The agreement that older implants are safer than newer implants (OR 1.9 for screws; 2.5 for hip arthroplasty), and that generics are a better value than brand name implants (OR 3.0 for screws; 4.3 for hip arthroplasty) were independently associated with a preference for generics. Conclusion: The observation that many people view generic implants as being a good value, yet fewer would prefer to use them in their own care indicates that concerns over quality may initially limit utilization of generic implants. More evidence is needed to reassure most consumers of the safety and effectiveness of generic implants. Additionally, our findings demonstrate a desire for more implant price transparency when undergoing orthopaedic 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.