4.6 Review

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review

Journal

VALUE IN HEALTH
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 844-854

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.018

Keywords

cost-benefit analysis; injury; low-value clinical practices; value-based care

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [353 374]
  2. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research systematically reviewed the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care and found that almost half of the clinical interventions studied in acute injury care may not be cost-effective. Additionally, the study identified more cost-effectiveness research in certain medical fields.
Objectives: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. Methods: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). Results: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars 2467 000 to international dollars 194000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. Conclusions: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available