Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41734249›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume2026

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery Versus Functional Bracing for Humeral Shaft Fractures in Adults: A Prespecified Economic Evaluation of the Finnish Shaft of the Humerus (FISH) Trial.

Cyrill Suter, Thomas Ibounig, Aleksi Reito, Henrik Mattila, Bakir O Sumrein, Antti P Launonen, Mika Paavola, Teppo L N Järvinen, Simo Taimela, Lasse Rämö and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

11 authors.

Cyrill SuterFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8383-7479
Thomas IbounigFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9658-8571
Aleksi ReitoDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6903-6461
Henrik MattilaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3656-4601
Bakir O SumreinDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8267-8653
Antti P LaunonenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3125-0171
Mika PaavolaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Teppo L N JärvinenFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3713-956
Simo TaimelaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-6755-2983
Lasse RämöFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4154-8462
FISH Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHumeral shaft fractures commonly affect working-age adults and can lead to prolonged work absence and substantial economic burden. Although surgical fixation and functional bracing offer comparable functional outcomes, their relative cost-effectiveness remains unclear.

methodsWe conducted a prespecified economic evaluation alongside a multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial at 2 Finnish university hospitals between 2012 and 2018. Eighty-two adults (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women) with displaced, closed humeral shaft fractures were randomly assigned to surgical fixation (n = 38) or functional bracing (n = 44) and followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured with the 15-dimensional (15D) instrument, analyzed from both societal and health-care perspectives.

resultsFrom a societal perspective, surgical treatment was both more effective and less costly than bracing. The mean total cost per patient was €23,680 for surgery and €30,389 for bracing, yielding an INMB of €9,423 (95% confidence interval [CI], €4,139 to €14,609). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that surgery was highly likely to be cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds up to €120,000 per QALY. The cumulative QALYs from 6 weeks to 2 years post-injury were 1.776 (95% CI, 1.725 to 1.827) for surgery and 1.705 (95% CI, 1.641 to 1.769) for bracing, corresponding to a QALY difference of 0.071 (95% CI, 0.012 to 0.130) in favor of surgery. From the health-care perspective, functional bracing was less costly (€4,904 versus €10,967) and therefore more cost-effective, with an INMB of -€4,087 (95% CI, -€5,215 to -€3,054). When considering only direct medical costs, surgery was unlikely to be cost-effective at thresholds below €80,000 per QALY, reaching a 75% probability of cost-effectiveness only at €120,000 per QALY.

conclusionsSurgery is cost-effective when societal costs are considered. Functional bracing remains a reasonable option, particularly for patients less affected by time away from work. Shared decision-making should incorporate both economic and individual patient factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

BracesCost-Benefit AnalysisFracture FixationHumeral FracturesAdultCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID41734249
PMCPMC13290060

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.