Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Transtibial Amputees: A Scoping Review of Comparative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Transtibial amputation (TTA) is life-altering emotionally, functionally, and economically. The economic impact to all stakeholders is largely unknown, as is the cost-effectiveness of prosthetic intervention. This scoping report’s purpose was to determine if there is sufficient evidence to conduct a formal systematic review or meta-analysis in any particular prosthetic intervention area and to determine if any evidence statements could be synthesized relative to economic evaluation of interventions provided to patients with TTA. The scoping review revealed six articles representing three topical areas of transtibial care: Care Models, Prosthetic Treatment, and Prosthetic Sockets. All six articles were cost-identification or cost-consequence design and included a total of 704 subjects. Presently, it can be concluded with moderate confidence that specific weight bearing and total contact sockets for transtibial amputees are functionally and economically equivalent in the short term when costs, delivery time, and all stakeholder perspectives are considered. Long-term socket outcomes are relatively unexplored. Further primary research is needed beyond this to determine cost-effectiveness for other areas of transtibial prosthetic care although clinical outcomes are somewhat established through systematic review and meta-analysis in other areas of care. Conversely, evaluation of narrative economic reports relative to transtibial care may be sufficient to warrant further analysis. Guidance from the profession may also be useful in devising a strategy for how to assure economic analyses are a routine element of future prosthetic science.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".