Indian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Indian Institute of Public Health-Bhubaneswar, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 25;18(7):e0280371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280371. eCollection 2023.
The main objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on the core modelling specifications and methodology on the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared to non-surgical management. Another objective of this study is to synthesize evidence of TKR cost and compare it across countries using purchasing power parity (PPP).
The electronic databases used for this review were MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HTAIn repository, Cost effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, and Google Scholar. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the validity of the methods and transparency in reporting the results. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to check the quality of economic evaluation models of the studies included. The cost of TKR surgery from high income and low- or middle-income countries were extracted and converted to single USD ($) using purchasing power parities (PPP) method.
Thirty-two studies were included in this review, out of which eight studies used Markov model, five used regression model, one each reported Marginal structure model, discrete simulation model, decision tree and Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) respectively to assess the cost-effectiveness of TKR. For PPP, twenty-six studies were included in the analysis of TKR cost. The average cost of TKR surgery was the lowest in developing country-India ($3457) and highest in USA ($19568).
The findings of this review showed that the Markov model was most widely used in the analysis of the cost effectiveness of TKR. Our review also concluded that the cost of TKR was higher in the developed countries as compared to the developing countries.
本综述的主要目的是总结 TKR 与非手术治疗相比的成本效益的核心建模规范和方法的证据。本研究的另一个目的是综合 TKR 成本的证据,并使用购买力平价 (PPP) 比较各国之间的差异。
本综述使用的电子数据库包括 MEDLINE(PubMed)、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、HTAIn 存储库、成本效益分析(CEA)登记处和 Google Scholar。综合健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)用于评估方法的有效性和报告结果的透明度。质量健康经济研究(QHES)用于检查纳入研究的经济评估模型的质量。从中高收入国家和低收入或中等收入国家提取 TKR 手术的成本,并使用购买力平价(PPP)方法转换为单一美元($)。
本综述共纳入 32 项研究,其中 8 项研究使用了马尔可夫模型,5 项研究使用了回归模型,1 项研究报告了边际结构模型,1 项研究使用离散模拟模型,1 项研究使用决策树,1 项研究使用骨关节炎政策模型(OAPol)分别评估 TKR 的成本效益。对于 PPP,共有 26 项研究纳入 TKR 成本分析。TKR 手术的平均成本在发展中国家印度最低(3457 美元),在美国最高(19568 美元)。
本综述的结果表明,马尔可夫模型是 TKR 成本效益分析中最广泛使用的模型。我们的综述还得出结论,与发展中国家相比,发达国家的 TKR 成本更高。