ArticleArthritis care & research2025
Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of a Standardized Education and Exercise Therapy Program for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Compared to Usual Care.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From paradox to population impact: Rethinking strengthening in knee osteoarthritis - A state-of-the-art review.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Review
- Implementing a guideline-based model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis in Finland (FIN-OA): Protocol for a benchmarking-controlled trial.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of a standardized education and exercise therapy program (GLA:D) compared to usual care (UC) for people managing hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (HKOA).
methodsWe used a prospective matched cohort design to recruit people (aged >45 years) diagnosed with HKOA who used GLA:D or UC (not on a surgical waitlist) throughout Alberta, Canada. Demographics, pain, function, quality of life, and an HKOA-related cost questionnaire were administered over 12 months. The primary Ministry of Health (MOH) perspective used administrative data to estimate all public health care costs. The secondary health care perspective included MOH, private insurance, and out-of-pocket costs. We calculated our cost-effectiveness measure, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) in Canadian dollars, over 12 months with a $30,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) willingness to pay threshold and adjusted for the differences between cohorts. A Markov model was used to extend INMB over a lifetime time horizon (3% discounting). Model uncertainty was explored by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsA total of 254 participants (GLA:D n = 127, UC n = 127; 72% female), with a mean age of 64.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.1-65.5), diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis (63%), hip osteoarthritis (24%), or both (13%) were observed for a mean of 5.5 years (95% CI: 4.8-6.3). The adjusted INMB of GLA:D compared to UC was $6,065 (95% CI: $3,648-$8,482) and $499 (95% CI: -$2,913 to $3,912) from an MOH and health care perspective over 12 months and $6,574 and $1,775 over a lifetime with 54% and 51% probability of being cost-effective using a threshold of willingness to pay of $30,000 per QALY.
conclusionsGLA:D had a positive INMB compared to UC from the MOH perspective over 12 months. The INMB remained positive but was less certain over a lifetime or when out-of-pocket and private insurance costs were considered.
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.