ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Calculating Value in Hand and Wrist Care: A Systematic Review on the Current Literature.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Global health care systems are shifting toward value-based care models, with the hand and wrist field presenting a notable opportunity to enhance quality and efficiency because of large patient volumes, a variety of pathologies, and diversity in treatment options. This systematic review aimed to investigate the literature on calculations of value between different treatment options in hand and wrist care. Methods: Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, two reviewers searched three databases to identify, screen, and evaluate research articles within hand and wrist care comparing the value between treatment groups based on real-world clinical data. Results: Nineteen of 181 hand and wrist articles screened met our predetermined inclusion criteria. Studies primarily employed the EuroQol 5-Dimension survey for quality metrics with the payer or societal cost perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio formula was the most used value calculation. The majority of included studies originate from Europe. Studies assessing distal radius fracture care highlighted reduced imaging strategies as more cost effective than traditional methods and bandaging as more cost effective than rigid immobilization. Studies assessing scaphoid fractures identified immediate magnetic resonance imaging intervention to outperform standard care and cast treatment combined with early fixation to be superior to standalone surgery or no treatment. Conclusions: Global literature on value-based comparative studies in hand and wrist care demonstrates variability in methodology, limiting direct comparisons. Most real-world studies were conducted within single-payer systems, highlighting the potential for further investments in value analysis protocols in multipayer systems. Clinical relevance: Establishing a standardized methodology for value assessment, will enable better comparisons and improvements in hand and wrist care. As global health care costs continue to rise, conducting research that identifies high-value care across diverse health care systems is essential to ensure sustainable, effective, and patient-centered care for all stakeholders.
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.