The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review of published literature

Introduction: In the United States, over 1,000,000 total joint arthroplasty (TJA) surgeries are performed annually and has been forecasted that this number will exceed 4,000,000 by the year 2030. Many different types of dressing exist for use in TJA surgery, and it is unclear if any of the newer, hydrofibre dressings are superior to traditional dressings at reducing rates of infections or improving wound healing. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of hydrofiber dressings on reducing complications. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the online databases MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrofibre dressings to a standard dressing were included. Summary measures are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcome was prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Secondary outcomes included blisters, dressing changes and wound irritation. Results: 5 RCTs were included. Hydrofibre dressing had no observable effect on PJI or wound irritation (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14–1.98; p = 0.35). Hydrofibre dressings reduced the rate of blisters (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14–0.90; p = 0.03) and number of dressing changes (MD -1.89; 95% CI, -2.68 to -1.11). Conclusions: In conclusion, evidence suggests hydrofibre dressings have no observable effect on PJI and wound irritation. Evidence for reduction in blisters and number of dressings is modest given wide CIs and biased trial methodologies. Use of hydrofibre dressings should be considered inconclusive for mitigating major complications in light of current best evidence.

Download Full-text

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

Digital Health ◽

10.1177/20552076211000559 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 205520762110005

Author(s):

Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽

Sheana Bull ◽

Elizabeth Greenwell ◽

Maya Bunik ◽

Jini Puma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Behavior Change ◽

Quantitative Measure ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Behavior Change Communication ◽

Change Communication ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?

Nursing Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2014/896587 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-28 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Faith Donald ◽

Kelley Kilpatrick ◽

Kim Reid ◽

Nancy Carter ◽

Ruth Martin-Misener ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Internal Validity ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Nurse Specialist ◽

Clinical Nurse ◽

Education Experience ◽

The Cost

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles.Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization).Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012.Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n=11), NP-transition (n=5), NP-inpatient (n=2), CNS-outpatient (n=11), CNS-transition (n=13), and CNS-inpatient (n=1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity.Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

Download Full-text