Critical appraisal of the orthopaedic literature: therapeutic and economic analysis

A cost-utility analysis of open A1 pulley release for the treatment of trigger finger

The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence considers a procedure to be cost-effective if the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained falls below a threshold of £20,000-£30,000 (€22,600-33,900; US$24,600-$36,900). This study used cost per quality-adjusted life year methodology to determine the cost-utility ratio of A1 pulley release. Pre- and postoperative EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were collected prospectively over 6 years from 192 patients. The median pre- and postoperative indices derived from the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were significantly different at 0.77 and 0.80. The mean life expectancy was 21 years. The mean number of quality-adjusted life years gained was 1 per patient. The mean cost-utility ratio per patient was £32,308 (€36,508; US$39,730) and £16,154 (€18,254; US$19,869) at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Provided the benefit of surgery was maintained over the remaining life expectancy, the cost-utility ratio decreased to £1537 (€1737; US$1891) per patient. A1 pulley release is cost-effective provided the benefit is maintained for 2 years. The procedure is also associated with a statistically significant improvement in quality of life.Level of evidence: III.

Observational Analysis of Changing Trends in Level of Evidence of Scoliosis Research Society Annual Meeting Podium Presentations in the New Millennium (2001-2013)

STUDY DESIGN

Observational quantitative evaluation of all Scoliosis Research Society annual meeting (SRS-AM) podium presentations over a 6-year period in the new millennium for changing trends in Level of Evidence (LoE).

OBJECTIVES

To report the LoE of SRS-AM podium presentations over a 13-year period in the new millennium and to compare the trends in LoE over a 3-year period between the two decades, that is, 2001-2003 versus 2011-2013.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LoE is a rating system introduced by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) in 2003 to reflect the quality of clinical studies. No study has looked into any of AAOS-affiliated spinal specialist societies' LoE, hence this study.

METHODS

The SRS-AM proceedings books from two 3-year periods, 2001-2003 and 2011-2013, were retrieved. Two orthopedic surgeons independently graded each abstract on two occasions, 1 month apart, assigning them LoE from I to V, in accordance with the stringent guidelines published by AAOS. They also categorized all studies into types (ie, therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, economic or decision-modeling analysis, or LoE not applicable). Any disagreement between the two assessors over the LoE or the nature of study was discussed, and agreed upon by consensus. Thus, analyzed abstracts of the two groups were subsequently compared and subjected to statistical tests to determine significance.

RESULTS

637 free-papers from six annual meeting proceedings (264 in Group I and 373 in Group II) were analyzed in total. LoE I and II studies have more than doubled (p<.0001), and LoE IV studies have fallen by half in 2011-2013 as compared to 2001-2003.

CONCLUSION

The SRS-AM podium presentation has shown an increase in LoE I and II studies in the new millennium. SRS is the first AAOS-affiliated subspecialty society to have undertaken an in-depth analysis of its AM podium presentations, setting a standard for other societies to emulate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable.

Users' guide to the orthopaedic literature: what is a cost-effectiveness analysis?

As the cost of healthcare continue to rise, orthopaedic surgeons are being pressured to practice cost-effective healthcare. Consequently, economic evaluation of treatment options are being reported more commonly in medical and surgical literature. As new orthopaedic procedures and treatments may improve patient outcome and function over traditional treatment options, the effect of the potentially higher costs of new treatments should be formally evaluated. Unfortunately, the resources available for healthcare spending are typically limited. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analyses have become an important and useful tool in informing which procedure or treatment to implement into practice. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a type of economic analysis that compares both the clinical outcomes and the costs of new treatment options to current treatment options or standards of care. For a clinician to be able to apply the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis to their practice, they must be able to critically review the available literature. Conducting an economic analysis is a challenging process, which has resulted in a number of published economic analyses that are of lower quality and may be fraught with bias. It is important that the reader of an economic analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis have the skills required to properly evaluate and critically appraise the methodology used before applying the recommendations to their practice. Using the principles of evidence-based medicine and the questions outlined in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Users' Guide to the Medical Literature, this article attempts to illustrate how to critically appraise a cost-effectiveness analysis in the orthopaedic surgery literature.