Is Surgery for Displaced, Midshaft Clavicle Fractures in Adults Cost-Effective? Results Based on a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of displaced, midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. DESIGN: Formal cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Eight hospitals in Canada (seven university-affiliated and one community hospital). PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two adults with acute, completely displaced, midshaft clavicle fractures. INTERVENTION: Clavicle ORIF versus nonoperative treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Utilities derived from SF-6D. RESULTS: The base case cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ORIF was $65,000. Cost-effectiveness improved to $28,150/QALY gained when the functional benefit from ORIF was assumed to be permanent with cost per QALY gained falling below $50,000 when the functional advantage persisted for 9.3 years or more. In other sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY gained for ORIF fell below $50,000 when ORIF cost less than $10,465 (base case cost $13,668) or the long-term utility difference between nonoperative treatment and ORIF was greater than 0.034 (base case difference 0.014). Short-term disutility associated with fracture healing also affected cost-effectiveness with the cost per QALY gained for ORIF falling below $50,000 when the utility of a fracture treated nonoperatively before union was less than 0.617 (base case utility 0.706) or when nonoperative treatment increased the time to union by 20 weeks (base case difference 12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of ORIF after acute clavicle fracture depended on the durability of functional advantage for ORIF compared with nonoperative treatment. When functional benefits persisted for more than 9 years, ORIF had a favorable value compared with many accepted health interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".