Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37490490›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Costs and models used in the economic analysis of Total Knee Replacement (TKR): A systematic review.

Naline Gandhi, Amatullah Sana Qadeer, Ananda Meher, Jennifer Rachel, Abhilash Patra, Jebamalar John, Aiswarya Anilkumar, Ambarish Dutta, Lipika Nanda, Sarit Kumar Rout

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Pharmacologic Mechanisms ofFood science & nutrition · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Osteoarthritis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Economic burden of knee joint replacement in Iran.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Naline GandhiIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Amatullah Sana QadeerIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0433-9445
Ananda MeherIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2020-1822
Jennifer RachelIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9388-927X
Abhilash PatraIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Jebamalar JohnIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Aiswarya AnilkumarIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Ambarish DuttaIndian Institute of Public Health-Bhubaneswar, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Lipika NandaIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Sarit Kumar RoutIndian Institute of Public Health-Bhubaneswar, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0831-789X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe main objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on the core modelling specifications and methodology on the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared to non-surgical management. Another objective of this study is to synthesize evidence of TKR cost and compare it across countries using purchasing power parity (PPP). METHODOLOGY: The electronic databases used for this review were MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HTAIn repository, Cost effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, and Google Scholar. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the validity of the methods and transparency in reporting the results. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to check the quality of economic evaluation models of the studies included. The cost of TKR surgery from high income and low- or middle-income countries were extracted and converted to single USD ($) using purchasing power parities (PPP) method.

resultThirty-two studies were included in this review, out of which eight studies used Markov model, five used regression model, one each reported Marginal structure model, discrete simulation model, decision tree and Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) respectively to assess the cost-effectiveness of TKR. For PPP, twenty-six studies were included in the analysis of TKR cost. The average cost of TKR surgery was the lowest in developing country-India ($3457) and highest in USA ($19568).

conclusionThe findings of this review showed that the Markov model was most widely used in the analysis of the cost effectiveness of TKR. Our review also concluded that the cost of TKR was higher in the developed countries as compared to the developing countries.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritisCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansIndiaModels, EconomicQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID37490490
PMCPMC10368258

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.