ArticleBMC health services research2023
Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ECONOMIC STUDIES IN BRAZILIAN ORTHOPEDICS: A SCOPING REVIEW.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study we proposed a new strategy to measure cost-effectiveness of second opinion program on spine surgery, using as measure of effectiveness the minimal important change (MIC) in the quality of life reported by patients, including the satisfaction questionnaire regarding the treatment and direct medical costs.
methodsRetrospective analysis of patients with prior indication for spine surgery included in a second opinion program during May 2011 to May 2019. Treatment costs and outcomes were compared considering each patients' recommended treatment before and after the second opinion. Costs were measured under the perspective of the hospital, including hospital stay, surgical room, physician and staff fees and other costs related to hospitalization when surgery was performed and physiotherapy or injection costs when a conservative treatment was recommended. Reoperation costs were also included. For comparison analysis, we used data based on our clinical practice, using data from patients who underwent the same type of surgical procedure as recommended by the first referral. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved the MIC in quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-3 L 2 years after starting treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.
resultsBased upon the assessment of 1,088 patients that completed the entire second opinion process, conservative management was recommended for 662 (60.8%) patients; 49 (4.5%) were recommended to injection and 377 (34.7%) to surgery. Complex spine surgery, as arthrodesis, was recommended by second opinion in only 3.7% of cases. The program resulted in financial savings of -$6,705 per patient associated with appropriate treatment indication, with an incremental effectiveness of 0.077 patients achieving MIC when compared to the first referral, resulting in an ICER of $-87,066 per additional patient achieving the MIC, ranging between $-273,016 and $-41,832.
conclusionAfter 2 years of treatment, the second opinion program demonstrated the potential for cost-offsets associated with improved quality of life.
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.