Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

MrAlexLiddle

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Clinical Senior Lecturer in Orthopaedics
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

a.liddle Website

 
 
//

Assistant

 

Miss Colinette Hazel +44 (0)20 7594 2725

 
//

Location

 

203Sir Michael Uren HubWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Burn:2017:10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4,
author = {Burn, E and Liddle, AD and Hamilton, TW and Pai, S and Pandit, HG and Murray, DW and Pinedo-Villanueva, R},
doi = {10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4},
journal = {PharmacoEconomics - Open},
pages = {241--253},
title = {Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A Systematic Review},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4},
volume = {1},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background and objectivePatients with anteromedial arthritis who require a knee replacement could receive either a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). This review has been undertaken to identify economic evaluations comparing UKR and TKR, evaluate the approaches that were taken in the studies, assess the quality of reporting of these evaluations, and consider what they can tell us about the relative value for money of the procedures.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken in January 2016 to identify relevant studies. Study characteristics were described, the quality of reporting and methods assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and study findings summarised.ResultsTwelve studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five were within-study analyses, while another was based on a literature review. The remaining six studies were model-based analyses. All studies were informed by observational data. While methodological approaches varied, studies generally had either limited follow-up, did not fully account for baseline differences in patient characteristics or relied on previous research that did not. The quality of reporting was generally adequate across studies, except for considerations of the settings to which evaluations applied and the generalisability of the results to other decision-making contexts. In the short-term, UKR was generally associated with better health outcomes and lower costs than TKR. Initial cost savings associated with UKR seem to persist over patients’ lifetimes even after accounting for higher rates of revision. For older patients, initial health improvements also appear to be maintained, making UKR the dominant treatment choice. However, for younger patients findings for health outcomes and overall cost effectiveness are mixed, with th
AU  - Burn,E
AU  - Liddle,AD
AU  - Hamilton,TW
AU  - Pai,S
AU  - Pandit,HG
AU  - Murray,DW
AU  - Pinedo-Villanueva,R
DO  - 10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4
EP  - 253
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 2509-4254
SP  - 241
TI  - Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A Systematic Review
T2  - PharmacoEconomics - Open
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000464337100002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/69940
VL  - 1
ER  -
Download