Cost-effectiveness of implant movement analysis in aseptic loosening after hip replacement: a health-economic model.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2023-11-20 DOI:10.1186/s12962-023-00498-w
Davide Lovera, Olof Sandberg, Maziar Mohaddes, Hanna Gyllensten
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of implant movement analysis in aseptic loosening after hip replacement: a health-economic model.","authors":"Davide Lovera, Olof Sandberg, Maziar Mohaddes, Hanna Gyllensten","doi":"10.1186/s12962-023-00498-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using Implant Movement Analysis (IMA) to follow up suspected aseptic loosening when the diagnosis after an initial X-ray is not conclusive, compared with a diagnostic pathway with X-ray follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A health-economic model in the form of a decision tree was developed using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the literature, cost-per-patient data from a university hospital and the probabilities of different events from expert physicians' opinions. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with established willingness-to-pay thresholds and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base case ICER indicated that the IMA pathway was cost effective (SEK 99,681, compared with the SEK 500,000 threshold). In the sensitivity analysis, the IMA pathway remained cost effective during most changes in parameters. ICERs above the threshold value occurred in cases where a larger or smaller proportion of people receive immediate surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A diagnostic pathway using IMA after an inconclusive X-ray for suspected aseptic loosening was cost effective compared with a pathway with X-ray follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10662297/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00498-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using Implant Movement Analysis (IMA) to follow up suspected aseptic loosening when the diagnosis after an initial X-ray is not conclusive, compared with a diagnostic pathway with X-ray follow-up.

Methods: A health-economic model in the form of a decision tree was developed using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the literature, cost-per-patient data from a university hospital and the probabilities of different events from expert physicians' opinions. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with established willingness-to-pay thresholds and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty.

Results: The base case ICER indicated that the IMA pathway was cost effective (SEK 99,681, compared with the SEK 500,000 threshold). In the sensitivity analysis, the IMA pathway remained cost effective during most changes in parameters. ICERs above the threshold value occurred in cases where a larger or smaller proportion of people receive immediate surgery.

Conclusion: A diagnostic pathway using IMA after an inconclusive X-ray for suspected aseptic loosening was cost effective compared with a pathway with X-ray follow-up.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
髋关节置换术后无菌性松动假体运动分析的成本-效果:一个健康-经济模型。
目的:探讨在初始x线诊断不明确的情况下,采用植入物运动分析(IMA)对疑似无菌性松动进行随访与x线随访诊断途径的成本-效果比较。方法:利用文献中的质量调整生命年(QALY)、某大学医院的每位患者成本数据以及专家医生意见中不同事件的概率,建立决策树形式的健康经济模型。将基本情况下的增量成本效益比(ICER)与既定的支付意愿阈值进行比较,并进行敏感性分析,以考虑假设和不确定性。结果:基础病例ICER表明IMA途径具有成本效益(99,681瑞典克朗,而阈值为500,000瑞典克朗)。在敏感性分析中,IMA途径在大多数参数变化时仍然具有成本效益。高于阈值的ICERs发生在接受立即手术的患者比例较大或较小的情况下。结论:与x线随访的诊断途径相比,在x线不确定的情况下使用IMA诊断怀疑无菌性松动的途径更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review. Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective. The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana. Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1