Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40137951›Full record

Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025

A cost-consequence analysis of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture (Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation-FEMuR III).

Kodchawan Doungsong, Jacob Davies, Victory Ezeofor, Llinos Haf Spencer, Nefyn Williams, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, FEMuR III team

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Kodchawan DoungsongCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. pim.doungsong@bangor.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0060-0706
Jacob DaviesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Victory EzeoforCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Llinos Haf SpencerUniversity of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK.
Nefyn WilliamsInstitute of Population Health, Waterhouse Building, Block B, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GF, UK.
Rhiannon Tudor EdwardsCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
FEMuR III team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The FEMuR III economic evaluation presents costs and consequences of the intervention compared with usual care at 52-week follow-up. There was no evidence of clinical effectiveness in terms of improvement of quality of life, and the total health service costs were higher in the intervention group. PURPOSE: To explore the costs and consequences of the new FEMuR III intervention compared to usual care after hip fractures.

methodsThis cost-consequence analysis accompanies the FEMuR III randomised controlled trial using a micro-costing approach. The main outcome measures in this economic evaluation were healthcare service use, costs, and quality of life over 12 months, from both National Health Service and wider societal perspectives. Quality of life was measured using the EuroQoL-5D-3L.

resultsThe mean cost of delivering the intervention was £444 per participant. For participants with complete EQ-5D data (n = 142), both groups showed improvement in EQ-5D index score, moving scores closer to UK norms. Participants in the intervention group gained 0.02 (95% CI: - 0.036, 0.076) more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than the usual care group. However, this was not statistically significant (p value = 0.312). For imputed cases, participants in the intervention group gained less QALYs than the usual care by 0.01 (95% CI: - 0.056, 0.030). For participants with complete cost data (n = 115), at 52-week follow-up, mean health service use costs were higher in the intervention group from both perspectives.

conclusionsThe mean health service use costs were higher in the intervention group due to longer inpatient stays. There was no significant difference in QALYs between both groups. The trial was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and this goes some way to explaining the large proportion of missing data (40%).

trial registrationISRCTN28376407.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHip FracturesOsteoporotic FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeCost-consequence analysisHealth economicsHip fracturesQuality of lifeRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40137951
PMCPMC12089205

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.