ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Plate fixation vs. intramedullary nailing: Which is more cost-effective for tibial shaft fractures?
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. 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
introductionTibial shaft fractures are among the most common injuries resulting from trauma and are typically managed surgically via either plate fixation or intramedullary nailing. Given the constraints on healthcare resources and the imperative to control costs, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these treatment strategies is essential. This study aimed to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness of intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for tibial shaft fractures.
methodsThis cross-sectional economic evaluation was conducted from a modified societal perspective, incorporating direct medical costs (from hospital records and patient reports) and direct non-medical costs (from patient reports), alongside treatment effectiveness measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and QALYs. The study included 276 patients with mid-shaft tibial fractures treated surgically with either intramedullary nailing or plate fixation at Shahid Dr. Rahnemoon Hospital, Yazd, Iran. Patients were followed for three months post-discharge. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of USD 4,771.4 per QALY (based on Iran's 2024 GDP per capita) was applied, and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using Stata version 16 and TreeAge Pro 2020.
resultsThe mean total direct cost per patient was lower for intramedullary nailing (USD 602.87) than plate fixation (USD 669.68), with hospital expenses comprising the largest share (USD 448.47 vs. USD 472.84, respectively). Using a linear area-under-the-curve approach, accumulated QALYs over 90 days were higher for nailing (0.0627) than plate fixation (0.0448). Cost-effectiveness analysis identified intramedullary nailing as the undominated strategy, while plate fixation was absolutely dominated due to higher costs and lower effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, and one-way sensitivity analyses consistently supported the cost-effectiveness advantage of intramedullary nailing under uncertainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 4,771.4 per QALY.
conclusionThis short-term economic evaluation indicates that intramedullary nailing is an undominated and more cost-effective option than plate fixation for the surgical management of tibial shaft fractures over a 90-day follow-up period, providing higher accumulated QALYs at lower direct costs. These findings support the preferential use of intramedullary nailing in similar clinical settings; however, longer-term studies incorporating fracture healing, complications, and indirect costs are needed to confirm cost-effectiveness beyond the early postoperative period.
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.