ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Health economic evaluation of trans-tibial prosthetic suspension systems: a protocol for a pilot using an observational study and synthetic cohort.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth Economic Evaluations (HEEs) provide the necessary evidence of cost-benefit to inform policy and investment decisions. No HEEs have quantified the cost-benefit of passive suction (PS) vs vacuum assisted suction (VAS) suspension for trans-tibial prosthesis users. There are methodological challenges to conducting HEE in prosthetics given the benefit measures are not focused on the things most important to prosthesis users and funders, and the required time horizons are lengthy. To address these challenges, we propose a pilot study using two PROMIS instruments to measure benefits and trial the use of a Synthetic Cohort Method, to quantify the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of PS and VAS suspension for people living with trans-tibial amputation.
methodsAn observational study will measure the costs and benefits of PS and VAS suspension for trans-tibial prosthesis users using a Synthetic Cohort Method, a technique used in epidemiological modelling of life-time risks. Each intervention will include 3 sub-groups, representing prosthesis users in the first, second, or third year of the intervention since fitting. A prosthetic payor perspective will be taken, with data collected over a 1-year period and synthesised to reflect the costs and benefits over a 3-year time horizon. Benefits will be measured using two PROMIS instruments reported to best measure the benefits most important to prosthesis users and funders. Costs will be calculated from actual billable costs to the funder. Costs and benefits will be discounted at 4%. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility will be calculated using the incremental costs and incremental benefits, with results presented as incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-utility ratios. Bootstrapping will be undertaken to assess uncertainty, and discounting will be analysed through a one-way sensitivity analysis. DISCUSSION: This pilot will make a novel contribution by trailing the use of a Synthetic Cohort Method to reduce the lengthy time horizons required in prosthetic HEE. The HEE will use a two-pronged approach whereby cost-utility and cost-effectiveness are simultaneously evaluated using the PROMIS instruments to inform a wide range of policy and investment decisions. Additionally, this pilot will be the first HEE of suction suspension systems for people with transtibial amputation and will therefore make an important contribution to the prosthetic evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.