ArticleBMC health services research2025
The cost-effectiveness of different generations ceramic-on-ceramic implants in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched population-based study.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCeramic-on-ceramic (CoCs) implants offer potential durability benefits in total hip arthroplasty (THA) but require notably high out-of-pocket copayments in Taiwan. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of third- (3rd-CoCs) and fourth-generation CoC implants (4th-CoCs) compared with fully covered metal-on-polyethylene (MoPs) from a payer's perspective.
methodsUsing Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data (2009-2019), we identified osteoarthritis patients aged ≥ 50 years undergoing their first primary THA. We applied both exact matching and propensity score matching between patients who received 3rd- and 4th-CoCs and those who received MoPs. Cox regression and generalized linear models were used to assess clinical outcomes and total healthcare costs, including NHI payments and implant copayments. Incremental cost‒effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated via 1,000 bootstrap iterations.
resultsThis 10-year retrospective cohort included 15,233 patients (10,158 MoPs; 1,565 3rd-CoCs; 3,504 4th-CoCs), with median follow-up durations of 6.2 years for 3rd-CoCs and 3.3 years for 4th-CoCs. Compared with MoPs, 3rd-CoCs had lower adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for revision (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.85) and postoperative complications (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.99), with ICERs of US$704 per 1% gain in revision-free survival and US$794 per 1% gain in postoperative complication-free survival, respectively. 4th-CoCs reduced 90-day medical complications (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.54) but had higher ICERs of US$2,947 per 1% gain in medical complication-free survival.
conclusionsNationwide data suggests that 3rd-CoCs appear to be more cost-effective than MoPs. In contrast, 4th-CoCs demonstrated limited short-term value and uncertain cost-effectiveness, warranting future long-term evaluation.
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.