Should the Donor Radius be Plated Prophylactically after Harvest of a Radial Osteocutaneous Flap? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic plating of the donor radius after harvest of a radial osteocutaneous flap. Costs were measured from a Ministry of Health perspective, and effectiveness in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs.) A literature search identified 22 studies reporting complications of radial osteocutaneous free flaps, and nine studies reporting complications of radius plating. The rates of the various complications were pooled to provide the probability of each clinically important complication. A decision analytic model was used to determine the total costs, and QALYs for each of the treatment options. The expected direct costs for prophylactic plating and treatment after fracture were $2071 and $140, respectively. The expected QALYs for prophylactic plating and treatment after fracture were 8.55 and 9.92, respectively. It was concluded that prophylactic plating of the donor radius is not a cost-effective approach when compared to the treatment of donor radius fractures after they occur.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".