↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s94266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J Cher, Melissa A Frasco, Renée JG Arnold, David W Polly

Abstract

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disorders are common in patients with chronic lower back pain. Minimally invasive surgical options have been shown to be effective for the treatment of chronic SIJ dysfunction. To determine the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive SIJ fusion. Data from two prospective, multicenter, clinical trials were used to inform a Markov process cost-utility model to evaluate cumulative 5-year health quality and costs after minimally invasive SIJ fusion using triangular titanium implants or non-surgical treatment. The analysis was performed from a third-party perspective. The model specifically incorporated variation in resource utilization observed in the randomized trial. Multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. SIJ fusion was associated with a gain of approximately 0.74 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of US$13,313 per QALY gained. In multiple one-way sensitivity analyses all scenarios resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$26,000/QALY. Probabilistic analyses showed a high degree of certainty that the maximum ICER for SIJ fusion was less than commonly selected thresholds for acceptability (mean ICER =$13,687, 95% confidence interval $5,162-$28,085). SIJ fusion provided potential cost savings per QALY gained compared to non-surgical treatment after a treatment horizon of greater than 13 years. Compared to traditional non-surgical treatments, SIJ fusion is a cost-effective, and, in the long term, cost-saving strategy for the treatment of SIJ dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis or SIJ disruption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#304
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,776
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.