SynthesisBMJ open2023
Cost-effectiveness and willing-to-pay thresholds for vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, what are they based on: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.Lung cancer management · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab for treatment of metastatic BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Versus Placebo and Conservative Treatment in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Balloon Kyphoplasty for Painful Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough there is substantial clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cost-effectiveness is less well known. The objective of this study is to provide a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies and policy-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for different vertebral augmentation (VA) procedures, vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK), for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).
designA systematic review targeting cost-effectiveness studies of VA procedures for OVFs. DATA SOURCES: Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception up to May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if meeting all predefined criteria: (1) VP or BK intervention, (2) OVFs and (3) cost-effectiveness study. Articles not written in English, abstracts, editorials, reviews and those reporting only cost data were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Information was extracted on study characteristics, cost-effective estimates, summary decisions and payer WTP thresholds. Incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Studies were summarised by a structured narrative synthesis organised by comparisons with conservative management (CM). Two independent reviewers assessed the quality (risk of bias) of the systematic review and cost-effectiveness studies by peer-reviewed checklists.
resultsWe identified 520 references through database searching and 501 were excluded as ineligible by titles and abstract. Ten reports were identified as eligible from 19 full-text reviews. ICER for VP versus CM evaluated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged from €22 685 (*US$33 395) in Netherlands to £-2240 (*US$-3273), a cost-saving in the UK. ICERs for BK versus CM ranged from £2706 (*US$3954) in UK to kr600 000 (*US$90 910) in Sweden. ICERs were within payer WTP thresholds for a QALY based on historical benchmarks.
conclusionsBoth VP and BK were judged cost-effective alternatives to CM for OVFs in economic studies and were within WTP thresholds in multiple healthcare settings.
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.