Cost-utility analysis of total knee arthroplasty alone and in comparison with post-surgical rehabilitation and conservative treatment in the Republic of Kazakhstan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite ample international knowledge on cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), it has never been a subject of investigation in Kazakhstan or other post-Soviet economies. Our study aimed to carry-out the cost-utility analysis of TKA alone and in comparison with post-surgical rehabilitation and conservative treatment at health care facilities of Kazakhstan. METHODS: Two hundred and forty four patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who underwent TKA in orthopedic departments of Almaty, Nur-Sultan and Semey hospitals between January 1, 2019 and September 30, 2019 were followed-up for 12 months. The health-related quality of life was measured by the EQ-5D utility and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index was used to measure the patients' health status. The costs were estimated from the view of health care provider. We calculated the cost per QALY, the Cost-Utility Ratio and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. RESULTS: At the time of 12-month follow-up patients who received TKA alone or with the course of rehabilitation showed benefit over patients from the group of conservative treatment in terms of overall health status. Mean QALY gained at 12 months constituted 1.66 for the group that received TKA with rehabilitation, 1.48 for the group that received TKA alone and 0.24 for the group that received conservative treatment. Mean cost per QALY gained was USD 30 795.75 for KOA patients under conservative treatment, USD 6 323.69 for KOA patients subjected to TKA and USD 2 670.32 for KOA patients with rehabilitation course after TKA. CONCLUSION: Both TKA and TKA with rehabilitation could be considered as highly cost-effective interventions. The data obtained could be of interest for policy makers, medical professionals and KOA patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".