A systematic review of health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: Part 2-orthotics.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2021
01 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2020
accepted:
22
10
2020
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Health economic evaluations (HEEs) in orthotics are in their infancy. Identification of evidence gaps and method design issues will inform the design of future HEEs that advance knowledge and contributes to policy and investment decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues, and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic policy and investment decisions. Systematic review. A range of databases were searched using intervention- and HEE-related terms. The Consolidated Health Economic Checklist-Extended and the Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were used to identify issues with method design and reporting. Nine orthotic HEEs were narrowly focused on the cost-effectiveness of low-cost orthotic devices (eg, ankle orthoses for ankle sprains). Method design (eg, cost identification and valuation) and reporting issues (eg, lack of detail about the study population) limited the extent to which this literature can inform policy and investment decisions. HEEs comparing a wider variety of interventions are required, particularly for commonly used orthoses (eg, ankle-foot orthoses) and clinical presentations (eg, post-stroke). There are opportunities to strengthen future orthotic HEEs by adopting method design features (eg, microcosting and sensitivity analyses) as recommended by HEE appraisal and reporting tools.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health economic evaluations (HEEs) in orthotics are in their infancy. Identification of evidence gaps and method design issues will inform the design of future HEEs that advance knowledge and contributes to policy and investment decisions.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues, and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic policy and investment decisions.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review.
METHODS
METHODS
A range of databases were searched using intervention- and HEE-related terms. The Consolidated Health Economic Checklist-Extended and the Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were used to identify issues with method design and reporting.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nine orthotic HEEs were narrowly focused on the cost-effectiveness of low-cost orthotic devices (eg, ankle orthoses for ankle sprains). Method design (eg, cost identification and valuation) and reporting issues (eg, lack of detail about the study population) limited the extent to which this literature can inform policy and investment decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HEEs comparing a wider variety of interventions are required, particularly for commonly used orthoses (eg, ankle-foot orthoses) and clinical presentations (eg, post-stroke). There are opportunities to strengthen future orthotic HEEs by adopting method design features (eg, microcosting and sensitivity analyses) as recommended by HEE appraisal and reporting tools.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33856150
pii: 00006479-202106000-00006
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
221-234Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease, published in accordance with resolution WHA29.35 of the Twenty-ninth World Health Assembly. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
Hovorka CF, Shurr DG, Bozik DS. The concept of an entry-level interdisciplinary graduate degree preparing orthotists for the new millennium part 1: history of orthotic and prosthetic education. J Prosthet Orthot. 2002;14:51-58.
Blocka D. Moving the profession. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:282-286.
Radford DJ. Grey Coats Or White Coats? The Emergence of Clinical Prosthetists in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University; 1993.
Ash S, O'Connor J, Anderson S, et al. A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:93-103.
Brown M. Participation: the insider's perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S34-S37.
Crozier M, Muenchberger H, Colley J, et al. The disability self-direction movement: considering the benefits and challenges for an Australian response. Austral J Soc Iss. 2013;48:455-472.
Roepke AM, Williams RM, Turner AP, et al. A longitudinal study of social participation after dysvascular lower extremity amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96:741-747.
Sherwood A, Brinkmann J, Fatone S. Review of benefits to practitioners of using good patient-practitioner communication. J Prosthet Orthot. 2018;30:5-12.
Cooke MW, Marsh JL, Clark M, et al. Treatment of severe ankle sprain: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three types of mechanical ankle support with tubular bandage. The CAST trial. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:iii.
Fatoye F, Haigh C. The cost-effectiveness of semi-rigid ankle brace to facilitate return to work following first-time acute ankle sprains. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25:1435-1443.
Janssen KW, Hendriks MR, van Mechelen W, et al. The cost-effectiveness of measures to prevent recurrent ankle sprains: results of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1534-1541.
Bridgman SA, Clement D, Downing A, et al. Population based epidemiology of ankle sprains attending accident and emergency units in the West Midlands of England, and a survey of UK practice for severe ankle sprains. Emerg Med J. 2003;20:508-510.
Clarke L, Dillon M, Shiell A. Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2019;8:152.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
Glanville J, Fleetwood K, Yellowlees A, et al. Development and Testing of Search Filters to Identify Economic Evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.
Howard-Wilsher S, Irvine L, Fan H, et al. Systematic overview of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation. Disabil Health J. 2016;9:11-25.
Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40:387-394.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.
Thielen FW, Van Mastrigt G, Burgers LT, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16:705-721.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Assistive Products for Persons With Disability—Classification and Terminology (ISO 9999), ISO/TC 173/SC 2. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2016.
National Alliance of Self Regulating Healthcare Professions (NASRHP). The National Alliance of Self Regulating Healthcare Professions. Available at: www.nasrhp.org.au . Accessed January 1, 2019.
Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Council. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009. Queensland, Australia; 2010.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the Economic Evalution of Health Care Programmes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240-245.
Odnoletkova I, Goderis G, Pil L, Nobels F, Aertgeerts B, Annemans L, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Education to Prevent the Development and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes. Systematic Review. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolism. 2014;5(9): (Appendix).
Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, et al. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:318-325.
Roelofs PD, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, van Poppel MN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar supports for home care workers with recurrent low back pain: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized-controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:E1619-E1626.
Clarke L, Dillon MP, Shiell A. A systematic review of health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics: Part 1—prosthetics. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020. 10.1177/0309364620935310
doi: 10.1177/0309364620935310
Brodtkorb TH, Henriksson M, Johannesen-Munk K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of C-leg compared with non-microprocessor-controlled knees: a modeling approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:24-30.
Chen C, Hanson M, Chaturvedi R, et al. Economic benefits of microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees: a modeling study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(suppl 1):62.
Cutti AG, Lettieri E, Del Maestro M, et al. Stratified cost-utility analysis of C-leg versus mechanical knees: findings from an Italian sample of transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41:227-236.
Datta D, Harris I, Heller B, et al. Gait, cost and time implications for changing from PTB to ICEX sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2004; 28: 115-120.
Frossard LA, Merlo G, Burkett B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: myth or reality? Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42:318-327.
Gerzeli S, Torbica A, Fattore G. Cost utility analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control (C-leg) compared with mechanical technology in trans-femoral amputees. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:47-55.
Gordon R, Magee C, Frazer A, et al. An interim prosthesis program for lower limb amputees: comparison of public and private models of service. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:175-183.
Haggstrom EE, Hansson E, Hagberg K. Comparison of prosthetic costs and service between osseointegrated and conventional suspended transfemoral prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:152-160.
Hansson E, Hagberg K, Cawson M, et al. Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:527-534.
Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Wernke MM, et al. Effects of the Genium knee system on functional level, stair ambulation, perceptive and economic outcomes in transfemoral amputees. Technol Innov. 2016;18:139-150.
Normann E, Olsson A, Brodtkorb TH. Modular socket system versus traditionally laminated socket: a cost analysis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:76-80.
Seelen H, Hemmen B, Schmeets AJ, et al. Costs and consequences of a prosthesis with an electronically stance and swing phase controlled knee joint. Technol Disabil. 2009;21:25-34.
Selles RW, Janssens PJ, Jongenengel CD, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcome and cost efficiency of a total surface-bearing socket versus a conventional patellar tendon-bearing socket in transtibial amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:154-161; quiz 180.
Woods B, Manca A, Weatherly H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172749.
Ring K, Otter S. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of bespoke and prefabricated foot orthoses for plantar heel pain: a prospective cohort study. Musculoskelet. 2014;12:1-10.
Olmsted LC, Vela LI, Denegar CR, et al. Prophylactic ankle taping and bracing: a numbers-needed-to-treat and cost-benefit analysis. J Athl Train. 2004;39:95-100.
Chesterton L, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, Burton C, Dziedzic K, Davenport G, Jowett S, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of corticosteroid injection versus night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome (INSTINCTS trial): an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2018;392:1423-33.
Jeffcoate W, Game F, Turtle-Savage V, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass heel casts in the management of ulcers of the heel in diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1-92.
Rome K, Clark H, Gray J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses for people with established rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory clinical trial. Scand J Rheumatol. 2017;46:187-193.
Garrick JG, Requa RK. Role of external support in the prevention of ankle sprains. Med Sci Sports. 1973;5:200-203.
Lardenoye S, Theunissen E, Cleffken B, et al. The effect of taping versus semi-rigid bracing on patient outcome and satisfaction in ankle sprains: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:81.
Sitler M, Ryan J, Wheeler B, et al. The efficacy of a semirigid ankle stabilizer to reduce acute ankle injuries in basketball. A randomized clinical study at West Point. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22:454-461.
Surve I, Schwellnus MP, Noakes T, et al. A fivefold reduction in the incidence of recurrent ankle sprains in soccer players using the sport-stirrup orthosis. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22:601-606.
Arazpour M, Bani MA, Maleki M, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of laterally wedged insoles and bespoke unloader knee orthoses in treating medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:50-57.
Baker K, Goggins J, Xie H, et al. A randomized crossover trial of a wedged insole for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1198-1203.
Bennell KL, Bowles KA, Payne C, et al. Lateral wedge insoles for medial knee osteoarthritis: 12 month randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d2912.
Maillefert J, Hudry C, Baron G, et al. Laterally elevated wedged insoles in the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:738-745.
Nigg BM, Emery C, Hiemstra LA. Unstable shoe construction and reduction of pain in osteoarthritis patients. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:1701-1708.
Toda Y, Tsukimura N. Influence of concomitant heeled footwear when wearing a lateral wedged insole for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:244-253.
Landorf KB, Radford JA. Minimal important difference: values for the foot health status questionnaire, foot function index and visual analogue scale. Foot. 2008;18:15-19.
Donahue M, Simon J, Docherty CL. Critical review of self-reported functional ankle instability measures. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:1140-1146.
Vuurberg G, Hoorntje A, Wink LM, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of ankle sprains: update of an evidence-based clinical guideline. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:956.
Rome K, Gray J, Stewart F, et al. Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses in the treatment of plantar heel pain: a feasibility study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004;94:229-238.
Kerkhoffs GM, Struijs PA, Marti RK, et al. Functional treatments for acute ruptures of the lateral ankle ligament: a systematic review. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:69-77.
Seah R, Mani-Babu S. Managing ankle sprains in primary care: what is best practice? A systematic review of the last 10 years of evidence. Br Med Bull. 2010;97:105-135.
Najafipour F, Najafipour F, Ahmadi A. Ankle Sprains at a Military Male School: taping versus bracing. J Arch Mil Med. 2014;2:e22517.
Hupperets MD, Verhagen EA, Heymans MW, et al. Potential savings of a program to prevent ankle sprain recurrence: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:2194-2200.
Junge A, Rösch D, Peterson L, et al. Prevention of soccer injuries: a prospective intervention study in youth amateur players. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:652-659.
Krist MR, van Beijsterveldt AM, Backx FJ, et al. Preventive exercises reduced injury-related costs among adult male amateur soccer players: a cluster-randomised trial. J Physiother. 2013;59:15-23.
Verhagen E, Van Tulder M, van der Beek AJ, et al. An economic evaluation of a proprioceptive balance board training programme for the prevention of ankle sprains in volleyball. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:111-115.
Miyan Z, Ahmed J, Zaidi SI, et al. Use of locally made off-loading techniques for diabetic plantar foot ulcer in Karachi, Pakistan. Int Wound J. 2014;11:691-695.