Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Cost-Utility Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery

Brauer, Carmen A. MD, MSc, FRCSC; Rosen, Allison B. MD, ScD; Olchanski, Natalia V. MS; Neumann, Peter J. ScD

Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume: June 2005 - Volume 87 - Issue 6 - p 1253–1259
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02152
Scientific Articles
Supplementary Content

Background: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature.

Methods: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis.

Results: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.

Level of Evidence: Economic and decision analysis, Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1 Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail address for C.A. Brauer:

2 Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health Systems, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health and Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Suite 7C27, 300 North Ingalls Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Copyright 2005 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article: