SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2026
Cost-effectiveness of total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review of the evidence.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasingly used to treat a range of shoulder disorders. Although TSA improves pain and function, its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, massive rotator cuff tears and proximal humerus fractures.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to July 2025 for full economic evaluations comparing TSA with surgical or non-operative alternatives. Eligible studies included primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Studies could be randomised, observational or model-based, and had to provide costs and outcomes to allow determination of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or equivalent expression. Study quality was assessed with the Drummond checklist. Given study heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively.
resultsOf 308 potentially eligible studies, 26 were included, comprising 15,163 patients, all of which were conducted in high-income countries. Fifteen studies were modelled, relying on published literature for costs and outcomes. Most studies were rated as fair (58%) or good (38%) quality. In four studies regarding osteoarthritis, ATSA was consistently cost-effective or dominant (more effective and less costly) over hemiarthroplasty. In three studies regarding osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff, ATSA and RTSA were similarly effective, and costs were similar or less for ATSA, depending on patient age. In four studies regarding proximal humerus fractures, RTSA was cost-effective or dominant over hemiarthroplasty. In three studies regarding massive rotator cuff tears, cuff repair was always substantially less costly and marginally more effective than RTSA.
conclusionsDespite the increasing use of TSA, evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness is limited to a small number of studies from high-income countries. Although TSA might be cost-effective for selected indications, high-quality, randomised, prospective economic evaluations from a diverse range of settings are needed to provide rigorous evidence to guide value-based care in shoulder arthroplasty.
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.