Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37009418›Full record

ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2023

Cost Analysis and Reimbursement of Weightbearing Computed Tomography.

Nathaniel B Alexander, Shumaila Sarfani, Carson D Strickland, David R Richardson, G Andrew Murphy, Benjamin J Grear, Clayton C Bettin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nathaniel B AlexanderDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA.
Shumaila SarfaniOrtho San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3861-4481
Carson D StricklandMid Tennessee Bone and Joint, Columbia, TN, USA.
David R RichardsonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7184-5233
G Andrew MurphyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8914-9992
Benjamin J GrearDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA.
Clayton C BettinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1540-3526
University of Tennessee Health Science Center · USUrology San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) is becoming a valuable tool in the evaluation of foot and ankle pathology. Currently, cost analyses of WBCT scanners in private practice are lacking in the literature. This study evaluated the costs of acquisition, utilization, and reimbursements for a WBCT at a tertiary referral center, information of particular interest to practices considering obtaining such equipment. Methods: All WBCT scans performed at a tertiary referral center over the 55-month period (August 2016 to February 2021) were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics, pathology location, etiology, subspecialty of the ordering provider, and whether the study was unilateral or bilateral were collected. Reimbursement was calculated based on payor source as a percentage of Medicare reimbursement for lower extremity CT. The number of total scans performed per month was evaluated to determine revenue generated per month. Results: Over the study period, 1903 scans were performed. An average of 34.6 scans were performed each month. Forty-one providers ordered WBCT scans over the study period. Foot and ankle fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons ordered 75.5% of all scans. The most common location of pathology was the ankle, and the most common etiology was trauma. The device was cost neutral at 44.2 months, assuming reimbursement for each study was commensurate with Medicare rates. The device became cost neutral at approximately 29.9 months when calculating reimbursement according to mixed-payor source. Conclusion: As WBCT scan becomes more widely used for evaluation of foot and ankle pathology, practices may be interested in understanding the financial implications of such an investment. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the only cost-effectiveness analysis of WBCT based in the United States. We found that in a large, multispecialty orthopaedic group, WBCT can be a financially viable asset and a valuable diagnostic tool for a variety of pathologies. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic.

Indexed as

acquisition and utilizationcost analysisCT scannerfoot and ankleMedicarereimbursementweightbearing computed tomography (CT)

Identifiers

PMID37009418
PMCPMC10052493
OpenAlexW4361014242

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.