Trends and Themes in the Study of Value in Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Hassaan Abdel Khalik, Manraj S. Nijjar, Jack Soeder, Darius L. Lameire, Herman Johal
{"title":"Trends and Themes in the Study of Value in Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review","authors":"Hassaan Abdel Khalik, Manraj S. Nijjar, Jack Soeder, Darius L. Lameire, Herman Johal","doi":"10.1177/15563316231204040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The study of value in orthopedic surgery aims to maximize health outcomes gained per unit cost through various health economic tools but is fragmented across various subspecialties and geographies. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether this research methodology is being used to its full potential across all orthopedic subspecialties and geographies. Purpose: We sought to assess the distribution of prior health economics literature in orthopedic surgery across subspecialties and geographies. The secondary aim was to identify pertinent methodologic trends that may affect the conclusions drawn. Methods: A systematic review utilizing 3 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed. Inclusion criteria included prior systematic reviews assessing economic analyses across all orthopedic surgery subspecialities published between 2010 and April 24, 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review tool. Data were qualitatively analyzed. Results: In the 44 studies included, arthroplasty (36.4%) and spine (31.8%) were the most represented subspecialties. Almost half of studies originated from the United States (45.5%), followed by the United Kingdom (18.2%). Health economic models were most commonly from the perspective of the health care or hospital system (40.5%), followed by the societal perspective (23.5%), and the payer perspective (14.8%). Conclusions: The study of value in orthopedic surgery is not uniformly leveraged across all subspecialties and geographies. Methodologically, the societal perspective was inadequately represented, despite orthopedic pathologies often incurring significant indirect costs (eg, time off work, rehabilitation expenses).","PeriodicalId":35357,"journal":{"name":"Hss Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hss Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316231204040","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The study of value in orthopedic surgery aims to maximize health outcomes gained per unit cost through various health economic tools but is fragmented across various subspecialties and geographies. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether this research methodology is being used to its full potential across all orthopedic subspecialties and geographies. Purpose: We sought to assess the distribution of prior health economics literature in orthopedic surgery across subspecialties and geographies. The secondary aim was to identify pertinent methodologic trends that may affect the conclusions drawn. Methods: A systematic review utilizing 3 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed. Inclusion criteria included prior systematic reviews assessing economic analyses across all orthopedic surgery subspecialities published between 2010 and April 24, 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review tool. Data were qualitatively analyzed. Results: In the 44 studies included, arthroplasty (36.4%) and spine (31.8%) were the most represented subspecialties. Almost half of studies originated from the United States (45.5%), followed by the United Kingdom (18.2%). Health economic models were most commonly from the perspective of the health care or hospital system (40.5%), followed by the societal perspective (23.5%), and the payer perspective (14.8%). Conclusions: The study of value in orthopedic surgery is not uniformly leveraged across all subspecialties and geographies. Methodologically, the societal perspective was inadequately represented, despite orthopedic pathologies often incurring significant indirect costs (eg, time off work, rehabilitation expenses).
骨科外科价值研究的趋势和主题:系统综述
背景:骨科手术的价值研究旨在通过各种健康经济工具最大化单位成本获得的健康结果,但在不同的亚专科和地理位置上是分散的。因此,很难确定这种研究方法是否在所有骨科亚专科和地区被充分利用。目的:我们试图评估骨科外科在不同亚专科和地区的既往卫生经济学文献的分布。第二个目的是确定可能影响所得结论的相关方法学趋势。方法:利用3个电子数据库(Medline, Embase和Web of Science)进行系统评价。纳入标准包括2010年至2021年4月24日期间发表的所有骨科亚专科经济分析评估的先前系统综述。使用多系统评价工具评估证据的质量。对数据进行定性分析。结果:在纳入的44项研究中,关节成形术(36.4%)和脊柱(31.8%)是最具代表性的亚专科。几乎一半的研究来自美国(45.5%),其次是英国(18.2%)。卫生经济模型最常见的是从卫生保健或医院系统的角度(40.5%),其次是社会角度(23.5%)和付款人角度(14.8%)。结论:骨科手术价值的研究在所有亚专科和地区并没有统一的杠杆作用。在方法上,社会观点没有充分体现,尽管骨科疾病经常产生重大的间接成本(例如,休假,康复费用)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Hss Journal
Hss Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The HSS Journal is the Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery. The aim of the HSS Journal is to promote cutting edge research, clinical pathways, and state-of-the-art techniques that inform and facilitate the continuing education of the orthopaedic and musculoskeletal communities. HSS Journal publishes articles that offer contributions to the advancement of the knowledge of musculoskeletal diseases and encourages submission of manuscripts from all musculoskeletal disciplines.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信