Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of published literature.
Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of published literature.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1302/0301-620x.100b11.bjj-2018-0246.r1
复制
发表时间：
2018-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Losina E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rajan PV;Qudsi RA;Dyer GSM;Losina E
本研究的目的是评估当前手部和上肢矫形外科领域成本-效果分析（CEA）文献的质量和范围。我们对MEDLINE和CEA登记处进行了系统回顾，以确定1997年1月1日或之后进行的CEA；研究了手部和上肢手术领域的一种程序；是临床研究；报告了质量调整寿命年的结果。我们总共确定了33项研究符合我们的纳入标准。这些研究的质量采用卫生经济分析质量（QHES）量表进行评估。所有33项研究的平均总QHES评分为82分（高质量）。然而，随着时间的推移，这些研究中更大比例的研究表明QHES质量较差（得分<75）。得分较低的研究显示出一些缺陷，包括无法识别参考视角；结合比较和敏感性分析；贴现成本和水电费；披露资金来源。在骨科中监测CEA研究的持续质量是很重要的。
The goal of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper extremity orthopaedic surgery. We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after Jan 1, 1997; studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery; were clinical studies; and reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale. The average total QHES score for all 33 studies was 82 (high-quality). However, over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores <75). Lower scoring studies demonstrated several deficits including failures in identifying reference perspectives; incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses; discounting costs and utilities; and disclosing funding. It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics.