Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2018

What do we know about managing Dupuytren’s disease cost-effectively?

Zeitschrift:
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Melina Dritsaki, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Alastair Gray, Catherine Ball, Jagdeep Nanchahal
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12891-018-1949-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

Dupuytren’s disease (DD) is a common and progressive, fibroproliferative disorder of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand. Various treatments have been recommended for advanced disease or to retard progression of early disease and to prevent deterioration of the finger contracture and quality of life. Recent studies have tried to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapies for DD, but there is currently no systematic assessment and appraisal of the economic evaluations.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies reporting economic evaluations of interventions for managing DD. Databases searched included the Ovid MEDLINE/Embase (without time restriction), National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (all years) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library) Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Cost-effectiveness analyses of treating DD were identified and their quality was assessed using the CHEERS assessment tool for quality of reporting and Phillips checklist for model evaluation.

Results

A total of 103 studies were screened, of which 4 met the study inclusion criteria. Two studies were from the US, one from the UK and one from Canada. They all assessed the same interventions for advanced DD, namely collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection, percutaneous needle fasciotomy and partial fasciectomy. All studies conducting a cost-utility analysis, two implemented a decision analytic model and two a Markov model approach. None of them were based on a single randomised controlled trial, but rather synthesised evidence from various sources. Studies varied in their time horizon, sources of utility estimates and perspective of analysis. The overall quality of study reporting was good based on the CHEERS checklist. The quality of the model reporting in terms of model structure, data synthesis and model consistency varied across the included studies.

Conclusion

Cost-effectiveness analyses for patients with advanced DD are limited and have applied different approaches with respect to modelling. Future studies should improve the way they are conducted and report their findings according to established guidance for conducting economic modelling of health care technologies.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered (CRD42016032989; date 08/01/2016) with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Search strategy used in the systematic review. (DOCX 12 kb)
12891_2018_1949_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Additional file 4: List of 65 publications identified in the first stage after removing duplicates. (DOCX 23 kb)
12891_2018_1949_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Additional file 5: Cheers Assessments of included studies. (DOCX 36 kb)
12891_2018_1949_MOESM5_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise