ArticleBMJ open2025
Protocol for the economic evaluation of individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation after surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder (RaCeR 2).
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRaCeR 2 is a pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, with full economic evaluation. The primary aim is to assess whether individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation (EPDR) results in less shoulder pain and disability at 12 weeks postrandomisation following surgical repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff of the shoulder compared with the current standard (delayed) rehabilitation. This paper provides the protocol for the RaCeR 2 health economic evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The health economic analysis of RaCeR 2 is made up of three phases: (1) development of an initial state-transition model structure, (2) within-trial cost consequence analysis and (3) long-term model-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective in England. Descriptive statistics (eg, mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence intervals and minimum and maximum values) will be reported for within-trial resource use, costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Health state-specific costs and HRQoL will be estimated using regression model approaches and used to inform a state-transition simulation model designed to quantify the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) experienced by patients over the model's time horizon. Where appropriate, final CEA model results will be reported as cost per QALY gained for individualised EPDR versus standard (delayed) rehabilitation. Model assumptions and overall parameter uncertainty will be tested using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. All regression analyses will be adjusted for baseline participant demographic and symptomatic characteristics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable ethical review was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee (23/LO/0195) on 13 April 2023. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at scientific conferences, and via the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11499185.
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.