A Tale of Two Health-Care Systems: Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Canadian health care is often criticized for extended wait times, whereas the United States suffers from increased costs. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the cost-utility of open carpal tunnel release in Canada versus the United States. Methods: A prospective cohort study evaluated patients undergoing open carpal tunnel release at an institution in Canada and the United States. All costs from a societal perspective were captured. Utility was measured using validated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales—the EuroQol-5D and the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire. Results: Twenty-one patients at the Canadian site and 8 patients at the US site participated. Mean total costs were US $1581 ± $1965 and $2179 (range: $1421-$2741) at the Canadian and US sites, respectively. Health-related quality of life demonstrated significant improvements following surgery ( P < .05). Patient utilities preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively were 0.72 ± 0.20, 0.86 ± 0.11, and 0.83 ± 0.16 at the Canadian site and 0.81 ± 0.09, 0.86 ± 0.10, and 0.86 ± 0.12 at the US site. Improvements in HRQOL directly related to surgery were not significantly different between patients in Canada and the United States. American patients, however, attained improved HRQOL sooner due to shorter wait times (27 ± 10 vs 214 ± 119 days; P < .001). The incremental cost-utility of the US system was $7758/quality-adjusted life year gained compared to the Canadian system. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that these results were robust. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that carpal tunnel surgery is more cost-effective in the United States due to prolonged wait times in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".