FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3198193768> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3198193768 endingPage "46" @default.
• W3198193768 startingPage "28" @default.
• W3198193768 abstract "Background: Currently, there is paucity of published evidence on the Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) model. There are limited resources from which conclusions could be drawn relating to the management of orthopaedic conditions, cost effectiveness, quality and safety, patient satisfaction rates and management when using the VFC model.Objectives: This narrative review of current published evidence aims to reveal how cost effective the VFC model is in relation to the orthopaedic management of both children and adults in the United Kingdom (UK). The review also seeks to identify gaps in current available literature and make recommendations for further research into the VFC model.Methods: This narrative review is secondary research of the evidence available on the VFC using a systematic approach. Seven electronic databases were searched to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies published since January 2010. The literature review identified 678 initial articles produced by undertaking key word searches (see appendix II). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram was used to assist in illustrating the process of filtering and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the search retrieval which subsequently led to 32 articles [1]. In total 14 relevant papers were selected following deduplication. Seven studies of various study types were selected and subjected to critical analysis using a systematic approach [2]. The main themes that have been selected are identified in Table 2.Results: No Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews were found regarding VFCs. Seven articles were identified and reviewed following an in-depth databases search, these consisted of clinical audits, simulation study, comparison study, perspective analysis and retrospective research. All studies were from the UK only. One paper focused on paediatric fractures, two dedicated their research to Webber B ankle breaks and fifth metatarsal, including Jones fractures. The other four research articles consisted of mainly cost comparison and service redesign studies. All studies but one, by White et al. [3] reported positive findings. Overall, cost effectiveness of VFCs ranged from £13.91 per patient to £122. Individual study trusts estimated variable cost savings, ranging from £81,920 to £212,705, also Nationally approximate projections confirmed sums reaching £1,1 million per year.Conclusion: This narrative review shows that there are potential cost savings to be made when using the VFC model. Current financial projections cannot be taken for granted at this present time. Further robust evidence such as RCTs or systematic reviews with meta-analysis are required before final conclusions can be drawn regarding cost effectiveness when using the VFC model throughout the UK." @default.
• W3198193768 created "2021-09-13" @default.
• W3198193768 creator A5051762245 @default.
• W3198193768 date "2021-08-25" @default.
• W3198193768 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3198193768 title "The Narrative Review of Published Evidence on Cost Analysis and Sustainability of the Virtual Fracture Clinic Model: A Report Based Study" @default.
• W3198193768 doi "https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/nfmmr/v10/12321d" @default.
• W3198193768 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3198193768 type Work @default.
• W3198193768 sameAs 3198193768 @default.
• W3198193768 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3198193768 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W3198193768 hasAuthorship W3198193768A5051762245 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C109359841 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C61904560 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C109359841 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C138885662 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C15744967 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C17744445 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C189708586 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C199033989 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C199539241 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C2779473830 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C41895202 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C509550671 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C61904560 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C71924100 @default.
• W3198193768 hasConceptScore W3198193768C77805123 @default.
• W3198193768 hasLocation W31981937681 @default.
• W3198193768 hasOpenAccess W3198193768 @default.
• W3198193768 hasPrimaryLocation W31981937681 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W10990611 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W11286448 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W14752472 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W15913715 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W16101511 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W18286027 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W1890212 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W3967951 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W4756702 @default.
• W3198193768 hasRelatedWork W9636919 @default.
• W3198193768 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3198193768 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3198193768 magId "3198193768" @default.
• W3198193768 workType "book-chapter" @default.