Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review - Spinal DISC Center | Kris Radcliff, MD | New Jersey
Dr. Kris Radcliff specializes in simplifying the management of complex spine conditions and traumatic spine injuries, focusing exclusively on spine surgery, with particular expertise in the area of artificial disc replacement. Dr. Radcliff is highly experienced, having performed more than 10,000 spine surgeries. He combines conservative decision-making judgment with state-of-the-art and minimally invasive surgical techniques, endoscopic spine surgery, and artificial disc replacement.
Dr. Kris Radcliff, Kris Radcliff MD, Kris Radcliff, spinal disc center, spinal disc center new jersey, artificial disc replacement, artificial disc replacement specialist, endoscopic spine surgeon, endoscopic spine surgeon new jersey, new jersey spine surgeon, best spine surgeon in new jersey, minimally invasive spine surgery, MISS New Jersey, cervical spine surgery, cervical lamino-foraminatomy, cervical radiculopathy, artificial cervical disc replacement, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar microdiscectomy, lumbar laminectomy, minimally invasive tlif, ALIF, kyphoplasty, SI joint fusion, facet joint injections, treatment for neck pain, treatment for back pain, treatment for cervical myelopathy, treatment for cervical radiculopathy, treatment for cervical stenosis, treatment for compression fractures, treatment for degenerative disc disease, treatment for herniated disc, treatment for sciatica, treatment for si joint disorders, treatment for spinal stenosis
16768
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16768,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0,wp-schema-pro-2.7.18,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-28.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_advanced_footer_responsive_1000,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.7.0,vc_responsive,elementor-default,elementor-kit-16783
 

Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review

Christopher K Kepler, Sean M Wilkinson, Kristen E Radcliff, Alexander R Vaccaro, David G Anderson, Alan S Hilibrand, Todd J Albert, Jeffrey A Rihn: Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. In: Spine J, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 676–690, 2012, ISSN: 1878-1632.

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the importance of the information provided by cost-utility analyses (CUAs), there has been a lack of these types of studies performed in the area of spinal care.

PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-utility studies published on spinal care between 1976 and 2010.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.

METHODS: All CUAs pertaining to spinal care published between 1976 and 2010 were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) registry database (Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The keywords used to search both the registry databases were the following: spine, spinal, neck, back, cervical, lumbar, thoracic, and scoliosis. Search of the CEA registry provided a total of 28 articles, and the NHS EED yielded an additional 5, all of which were included in this review. Each article was reviewed for the study subject, methodology, and results. Data contained within the databases for each of the 33 articles were recorded, and the manuscripts were reviewed to provide insight into the funding source, analysis perspective, discount rate, and cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS: There was wide variation among the 33 studies in methodology. There were 17 operative, 13 nonoperative, and 3 imaging studies. Study subjects included lumbar spine (n=27), cervical spine (n=4), scoliosis (n=1), and lumbar and cervical spine (n=1). Twenty-three of the studies were based on the clinical data from prospective randomized studies, 7 on decision models, 2 on prospective observational data, and 1 on a retrospective case series. Sixty cost-utility ratios were reported in the 33 articles. Of the ratios, 19 of 60 (31.6%) were cost saving, 27 of 60 (45%) were less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain, and 14 of 60 (23.3%) were greater than $100,000/QALY gain. Only four of 33 (12%) studies contained the four key criteria of cost-effectiveness research recommended by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-three CUA studies and 60 cost-utility ratios have been published on various aspects of spinal care over the last 30 years. Certain aspects of spinal care have been shown to be cost effective. Further efforts, however, are needed to better define the value of many aspects of spinal care. Future CUA studies should consider societal cost perspective and carefully consider the durability of clinical benefit in determining a study time horizon.

BibTeX (Download)

@article{pmid22784806,
title = {Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review},
author = {Christopher K Kepler and Sean M Wilkinson and Kristen E Radcliff and Alexander R Vaccaro and David G Anderson and Alan S Hilibrand and Todd J Albert and Jeffrey A Rihn},
doi = {10.1016/j.spinee.2012.05.011},
issn = {1878-1632},
year  = {2012},
date = {2012-08-01},
urldate = {2012-08-01},
journal = {Spine J},
volume = {12},
number = {8},
pages = {676--690},
abstract = {BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the importance of the information provided by cost-utility analyses (CUAs), there has been a lack of these types of studies performed in the area of spinal care.

PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-utility studies published on spinal care between 1976 and 2010.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.

METHODS: All CUAs pertaining to spinal care published between 1976 and 2010 were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) registry database (Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The keywords used to search both the registry databases were the following: spine, spinal, neck, back, cervical, lumbar, thoracic, and scoliosis. Search of the CEA registry provided a total of 28 articles, and the NHS EED yielded an additional 5, all of which were included in this review. Each article was reviewed for the study subject, methodology, and results. Data contained within the databases for each of the 33 articles were recorded, and the manuscripts were reviewed to provide insight into the funding source, analysis perspective, discount rate, and cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS: There was wide variation among the 33 studies in methodology. There were 17 operative, 13 nonoperative, and 3 imaging studies. Study subjects included lumbar spine (n=27), cervical spine (n=4), scoliosis (n=1), and lumbar and cervical spine (n=1). Twenty-three of the studies were based on the clinical data from prospective randomized studies, 7 on decision models, 2 on prospective observational data, and 1 on a retrospective case series. Sixty cost-utility ratios were reported in the 33 articles. Of the ratios, 19 of 60 (31.6%) were cost saving, 27 of 60 (45%) were less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain, and 14 of 60 (23.3%) were greater than $100,000/QALY gain. Only four of 33 (12%) studies contained the four key criteria of cost-effectiveness research recommended by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-three CUA studies and 60 cost-utility ratios have been published on various aspects of spinal care over the last 30 years. Certain aspects of spinal care have been shown to be cost effective. Further efforts, however, are needed to better define the value of many aspects of spinal care. Future CUA studies should consider societal cost perspective and carefully consider the durability of clinical benefit in determining a study time horizon.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.