MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292804781

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.

2016· review· en· W4292804781 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmputationQuality of life (healthcare)Cost effectivenessQuality-adjusted life yearHealth careSurgeryNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Injuries to arms and legs following severe trauma can result in the loss of large regions of tissue, disrupting healing and function and sometimes leading to amputation of the damaged limb. People experiencing amputations of the hand or arm could potentially benefit from composite tissue transplant, which is being performed in some countries. Currently, there are no composite tissue transplant programs in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, with no restriction on study design, examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand and arm transplant. We assessed the overall quality of the clinical evidence with GRADE. We developed a Markov decision analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of transplant versus standard care for a healthy adult with a hand amputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a 30-year time horizon. We also estimated the impact on provincial health care costs if these transplants were publicly funded in Ontario. RESULTS: Compared to pre-transplant function, patients' post-transplant function was significantly better. For various reasons, 17% of transplanted limbs were amputated, 6.4% of patients died within the first year after the transplant, and 10.6% of patients experienced chronic rejections. GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, single-hand transplant was dominated by standard care, with increased costs ($735,647 CAD vs. $61,429) and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.96 vs. 11.82). Double-hand transplant also had higher costs compared with standard care ($633,780), but it had an increased effectiveness of 0.17 QALYs, translating to an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY gained. In most sensitivity analyses, ICERs for bilateral hand transplant were greater than $1 million per QALY gained. A hand transplant program would lead to an estimated annual budget impact of $0.9 million to $1.2 million in the next 3 years, 2016 to 2018, to treat 3 adults per year. CONCLUSIONS: Composite tissue transplant of the hand or arm may improve a patient's ability to function, but because the overall quality of evidence is of very low quality, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh harms. Compared with standard care, both single- and double-hand transplants are not cost-effective.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.321 · 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