Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale.

RESULTS: The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding.

CONCLUSION: It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.