FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3050907279> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3050907279 endingPage "1017" @default.
• W3050907279 startingPage "1007" @default.
• W3050907279 abstract "Hypothesis The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify cost-analysis studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, provide a comprehensive review of published studies, and critically evaluate the quality of the available literature using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cost analyses examining shoulder arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to either shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA. Articles were excluded based on the following: nonoperative studies, nonclinical studies, studies not based in the United States, and studies in which no cost analysis was performed. The quality of studies was assessed using the QHES instrument. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to identify predictors of both low-quality (ie, QHES score < 25th percentile) and high-quality (ie, QHES score > 75th percentile) cost analyses based on items within the QHES checklist. Results Of the 196 studies screened, 9 were included. Seven studies conducted cost analyses comparing reverse TSA vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, HA, or total hip arthroplasty, and 2 studies examined TSA vs. HA for primary glenohumeral arthritis. The average QHES score among all studies was 86.22 ± 13.39 points. Failure to include an annual cost discounting rate was associated with a low-quality QHES score (P = .03). In addition, including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases was associated with a high-quality score (P = .03). Conclusions Shoulder arthroplasty is a cost-effective procedure when used to treat a multitude of shoulder pathologies. The overall quality of cost analysis in shoulder arthroplasty is relatively good, with an average QHES score of 86.22 points. Studies failing to include an annual cost discounting rate are more likely to score below the 25th percentile, whereas those including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases are more likely to achieve a score in excess of the 75th percentile. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify cost-analysis studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, provide a comprehensive review of published studies, and critically evaluate the quality of the available literature using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cost analyses examining shoulder arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to either shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA. Articles were excluded based on the following: nonoperative studies, nonclinical studies, studies not based in the United States, and studies in which no cost analysis was performed. The quality of studies was assessed using the QHES instrument. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to identify predictors of both low-quality (ie, QHES score < 25th percentile) and high-quality (ie, QHES score > 75th percentile) cost analyses based on items within the QHES checklist. Of the 196 studies screened, 9 were included. Seven studies conducted cost analyses comparing reverse TSA vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, HA, or total hip arthroplasty, and 2 studies examined TSA vs. HA for primary glenohumeral arthritis. The average QHES score among all studies was 86.22 ± 13.39 points. Failure to include an annual cost discounting rate was associated with a low-quality QHES score (P = .03). In addition, including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases was associated with a high-quality score (P = .03). Shoulder arthroplasty is a cost-effective procedure when used to treat a multitude of shoulder pathologies. The overall quality of cost analysis in shoulder arthroplasty is relatively good, with an average QHES score of 86.22 points. Studies failing to include an annual cost discounting rate are more likely to score below the 25th percentile, whereas those including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases are more likely to achieve a score in excess of the 75th percentile." @default.
• W3050907279 created "2020-08-24" @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5001653419 @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5018904755 @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5022044086 @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5023738696 @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5053647482 @default.
• W3050907279 creator A5055128851 @default.
• W3050907279 date "2021-05-01" @default.
• W3050907279 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3050907279 title "Cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder arthroplasty: a critical review using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument" @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1174233374 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1965964536 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1967884169 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1981318800 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1988340576 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W1989654054 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2000086754 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2009262619 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2016379608 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2019755227 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2030062680 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2030823747 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2033156884 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2037314926 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2037502178 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2039667282 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2043951092 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2059343098 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2077351095 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2086818113 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2109550587 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2110542139 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2112066550 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2120211131 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2126937419 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2130921523 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2139627833 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2155704538 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2158986059 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2296249609 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2300605477 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2314647738 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2332684476 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2344047532 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2506662217 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2519603001 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2526628154 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2560389522 @default.
• W3050907279 cites W2955384502 @default.
• W3050907279 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.040" @default.
• W3050907279 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32822877" @default.
• W3050907279 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3050907279 type Work @default.
• W3050907279 sameAs 3050907279 @default.
• W3050907279 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W3050907279 countsByYear W30509072792021 @default.
• W3050907279 countsByYear W30509072792022 @default.
• W3050907279 countsByYear W30509072792023 @default.
• W3050907279 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5001653419 @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5018904755 @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5022044086 @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5023738696 @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5053647482 @default.
• W3050907279 hasAuthorship W3050907279A5055128851 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C122048520 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C2776511800 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C2778336525 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C2779356329 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C105795698 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C122048520 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C141071460 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C15744967 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C180747234 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C1862650 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C2776511800 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C2778336525 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C2779356329 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C33923547 @default.
• W3050907279 hasConceptScore W3050907279C71924100 @default.
• W3050907279 hasFunder F4320314435 @default.
• W3050907279 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W3050907279 hasLocation W30509072791 @default.
• W3050907279 hasOpenAccess W3050907279 @default.
• W3050907279 hasPrimaryLocation W30509072791 @default.
• W3050907279 hasRelatedWork W1983371565 @default.
• W3050907279 hasRelatedWork W1987472976 @default.
• W3050907279 hasRelatedWork W2003736806 @default.
• W3050907279 hasRelatedWork W2075593810 @default.
• W3050907279 hasRelatedWork W2147160167 @default.

• next