ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Cost effectiveness analysis of operative versus nonoperative management of humeral shaft fractures in Denmark.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative management in the Danish healthcare system.
methodsA decision tree model for treatment options was developed. We used DRG fees and expert opinion to determine the total treatment cost in our institution. Mean wages-included as a component of cost during the time from work-and weeks missed were obtained from Statistics Denmark and the existing literature. The DASH survey, used to determine treatment efficacy, was also extracted from existing literature. An economic evaluation was conducted by use of rollback analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. The results were presented in cost ($) per meaningful change in DASH score. The Willingness-to-Pay threshold was set at $43,478.
resultsOperative management was identified as the preferred treatment option from a cost-effectiveness perspective: it is both more effective and less costly to the patient at both 6-month and 1-year follow-up when including lost wages. Sensitivity analyses show that even when non-operative success is increased to 100%, operative management remained cost-effective at both 6 months and 1-year follow-up in our wage loss-inclusive model. Nonoperative treatment is only more cost-effective than operative treatment at or above 97.6% union rate at 1-year follow-up in our model that excluded wage loss as a component of cost.
conclusionOperative management is cost-effective at both 6 months and 1 year, compared to non-operative treatment, when including wage loss as a component of cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41307750What 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.