Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41245902›Full record

ArticleCanadian prosthetics & orthotics journal2025

Health economic evaluation of microprocessor and non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees.

C E Bosman, C K van der Sluis, A H Vrieling, J H B Geertzen, B L Seves, H Groen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The influence of passive prosthetic knee joints on uneven compliant surface walking among transfemoral amputees under dual-task versus single-task conditions.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

C E BosmanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7950-5893
C K van der SluisDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A H VrielingDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J H B GeertzenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B L SevesDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
H GroenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of a microprocessor-controlled knee (MPK) compared to a non-microprocessor-controlled knee (NMPK) can lead to improved walking ability, confidence and satisfaction. However, the MPK is more expensive than the NMPK and it is unknown whether the higher costs outweigh the potential benefits.

objectiveTo evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of MPKs and NMPKs from a societal perspective in the Netherlands. METHODOLOGY: Participants completed the Dutch version of the EuroQol - five dimensions - five levels (EQ-5D-5L) to assess health-related quality of life, three subscales (ambulation, utility and well-being) of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) to assess prosthesis-related quality of life and a cost-questionnaire from societal perspective. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and the ICUR was compared with the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty, and multiple imputation was applied to account for missing values.

findingsIn total, 111 participants were included (37 female, 73 male, 1 unknown; 71 transfemoral, 39 knee disarticulation, 1 unknown; age 64 ± 13 years; 49 NMPK users, 62 MPK users). The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that the MPK yielded an increase of 0.032 quality adjusted life years (QALY) but at considerably higher costs. The mean cost difference was € 14,626, resulting in a mean ICUR of € 457,063 per QALY gained. The cost difference was mainly driven by acquisition costs but was partially compensated by lower costs of work absence, health care consumption and household care.

conclusionThe cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that the MPK is likely to provide benefits in term of prosthesis-specific quality of life, but at higher costs. However, short-term (6 months) improvement in health-related quality of life was too small to result in substantial QALY gain to offset the higher costs of the MPK and result in an incremental cost-utility ratio below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Indexed as

AmputationCost AnalysisCost-effectivenessKnee DisarticulationLower LimbMicroprocessor KneeMobilityProsthesesQuality of LifeQuestionnaireTransfemoral

Identifiers

PMID41245902
PMCPMC12614323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.