MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916546339 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3699

Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Interventions to Improve Quality of Care After Upper Extremity Fracture: Results From a Randomized Trial (C-STOP Trial)

2019· article· en· W2916546339 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sumit R. Majumdar, Douglas A. Lier, Finlay A. McAlister, Jeffrey Johnson, Brian H. Rowe, Lauren A Beaupré

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyQuality-adjusted life yearCost effectivenessIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)SurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of two models of osteoporosis care after upper extremity fragility fracture using a high-intensity Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) Case-Manager intervention versus a low-intensity FLS (ie, Active Control), and both relative to usual care. This analysis used data from a pragmatic patient-level parallel-arm comparative effectiveness trial of 361 community-dwelling participants 50 years or older with upper extremity fractures undertaken at a Canadian academic hospital. We used a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the three treatment alternatives. The perspective was health service payer; the analytical horizon was lifetime; costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3%. Costs were expressed in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and the health effect was measured by quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The average age of enrolled patients was 63 years and 89% were female. Per patient cost of the Case Manager and Active Control interventions were $66CAD and $18CAD, respectively. Compared to the Active Control, the Case Manager saved $333,000, gained seven QALYs, and averted nine additional fractures per 1000 patients. Compared to usual care, the Case Manager saved $564,000, gained 14 QALYs, and incurred 18 fewer fractures per 1000 patients, whereas the Active Control saved $231,000, gained seven QALYs, and incurred nine fewer fractures per 1000 patients. Although both interventions dominated usual care, the Case Manager intervention also dominated the Active Control. In 5000 probabilistic simulations, the probability that the Case Manager intervention was cost-effective was greater than 75% whereas the Active Control intervention was cost-effective in less than 20% of simulations. In summary, although the adoption of either of these approaches into clinical settings should lead to cost savings, reduced fractures, and increased quality-adjusted life for older adults following upper extremity fracture, the Case Manager intervention would be the most likely to be cost-effective. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207