The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1253-1259.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02152
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2005
Shoulder/Elbow Test 9: Summer 2005
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brauer, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Neumann, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brauer, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Neumann, P. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Spine
Right arrow Adult Hip
Right arrow Foot/Ankle
Right arrow Hand/Wrist
Right arrow Sports
Right arrow Pediatrics
Right arrow Oncology
Right arrow Rehabilitation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Cost-Utility Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery

Carmen A. Brauer, MD, MSc, FRCSC1, Allison B. Rosen, MD, ScD2, Natalia V. Olchanski, MS1 and Peter J. Neumann, ScD1

1 Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail address for C.A. Brauer: cbrauer{at}hsph.harvard.edu
2 Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health Systems, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health and Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Suite 7C27, 300 North Ingalls Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Investigation performed at Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Background: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature.

Methods: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis.

Results: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.

Level of Evidence: Economic and decision analysis, Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. J. Novak, M. D. Silverstein, and K. J. Bozic
The Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Navigation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2389 - 2397.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
C. A. Brauer and P. M. Waters
An Economic Analysis of the Timing of Microsurgical Reconstruction in Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2007; 89(5): 970 - 978.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
C. A. Brauer, B. J. Manns, M. Ko, C. Donaldson, and R. Buckley
An Economic Evaluation of Operative Compared with Nonoperative Management of Displaced Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2005; 87(12): 2741 - 2749.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]