MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803093300 · doi:10.3171/2018.2.focus17778

A scoping review on health economics in neurosurgery for acute spine trauma

2018· review· en· W2803093300 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian Chan, B. Catharine Craven, Julio C. Furlan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersOntario Neurotrauma FoundationUniversity Health NetworkRick Hansen InstituteWings for Life
KeywordsNeurosurgeryMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Acute spine trauma (AST) has a relatively low incidence, but it often results in substantial individual impairments and societal economic burden resulting from the associated disability. Given the key role of neurosurgeons in the decision-making regarding operative management of individuals with AST, the authors performed a systematic search with scoping synthesis of relevant literature to review current knowledge regarding the economic burden of AST. METHODS This systematic review with scoping synthesis included original articles reporting cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-comparison, and economic analyses related to surgical management of AST, whereby AST is defined as trauma to the spine that may result in spinal cord injury with motor, sensory, and/or autonomic impairment. The initial literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CCTR, and PubMed. All original articles captured in the literature search and published from 1946 to September 27, 2017, were included. Search terms used were the following: (cost analysis, cost effectiveness, cost benefit, economic evaluation or economic impact) AND (spine or spinal cord) AND (surgery or surgical). RESULTS The literature search captured 5770 titles, of which 11 original studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These 11 studies included 4 cost-utility analyses, 5 cost analyses that compared the cost of intervention with a comparator, and 2 studies examining direct costs without a comparator. There are a few potentially cost-saving strategies in the neurosurgical management of individuals with AST, including 1) early surgical spinal cord decompression for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (or traumatic thoracolumbar fractures, traumatic cervical fractures); 2) surgical treatment of the elderly with type-II odontoid fractures, which is more costly but more effective than the nonoperative approach among individuals with age at AST between 65 and 84 years; 3) surgical treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures, which is implicated in greater direct costs but lower general-practitioner visit costs, private expenditures, and absenteeism costs than nonsurgical management; and 4) removal of pedicle screws 1-2 years after posterior instrumented fusion for individuals with thoracolumbar burst fractures, which is more cost-effective than retaining the pedicle screws. CONCLUSIONS This scoping synthesis underscores a number of potentially cost-saving opportunities for neurosurgeons when managing patients with AST. There are significant knowledge gaps regarding the potential economic impact of therapeutic choices for AST that are commonly used by neurosurgeons.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207