Browsing by Subject "decision analysis"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnosis of meniscus tears.
    (Am J Sports Med, 2015-01) Mather, Richard C; Garrett, William E; Cole, Brian J; Hussey, Kristen; Bolognesi, Michael P; Lassiter, Tally; Orlando, Lori A
    BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging represents the fastest growing segment of costs in the US health system. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic approaches to meniscus tears of the knee, a highly prevalent disease that traditionally relies on MRI as part of the diagnostic strategy. PURPOSE: To identify the most efficient strategy for the diagnosis of meniscus tears. STUDY DESIGN: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A simple-decision model run as a cost-utility analysis was constructed to assess the value added by MRI in various combinations with patient history and physical examination (H&P). The model examined traumatic and degenerative tears in 2 distinct settings: primary care and orthopaedic sports medicine clinic. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In both practice settings, H&P alone was widely preferred for degenerative meniscus tears. Performing MRI to confirm a positive H&P was preferred for traumatic tears in both practice settings, with a willingness to pay of less than US$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Performing an MRI for all patients was not preferred in any reasonable clinical scenario. The prevalence of a meniscus tear in a clinician's patient population was influential. For traumatic tears, MRI to confirm a positive H&P was preferred when prevalence was less than 46.7%, with H&P preferred above that. For degenerative tears, H&P was preferred until the prevalence reaches 74.2%, and then MRI to confirm a negative was the preferred strategy. In both settings, MRI to confirm positive physical examination led to more than a 10-fold lower rate of unnecessary surgeries than did any other strategy, while MRI to confirm negative physical examination led to a 2.08 and 2.26 higher rate than H&P alone in primary care and orthopaedic clinics, respectively. CONCLUSION: For all practitioners, H&P is the preferred strategy for the suspected degenerative meniscus tear. An MRI to confirm a positive H&P is preferred for traumatic tears for all practitioners. Consideration should be given to implementing alternative diagnostic strategies as well as enhancing provider education in physical examination skills to improve the reliability of H&P as a diagnostic test. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alternative diagnostic strategies that do not include the use of MRI may result in decreased health care costs without harm to the patient and could possibly reduce unnecessary procedures.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Surgeon Applications of Patient Preferences in Treatment Decision Making for First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation.
    (Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020-12-04) Lau, Brian C; Hutyra, Carolyn A; Streufert, Benjamin; Reed, Shelby D; Orlando, Lori A; Huber, Joel C; Taylor, Dean C; Mather, Richard C

    Background

    Treatment of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) is sensitive to patient preferences. The operative or nonoperative management debate provides an excellent opportunity to learn how surgeons apply patient preferences in treatment decisions.

    Purpose

    To determine how patient preferences (repeat dislocation risk, recovery difficulties, fear of surgery, treatment costs) and surgeon factors influence a surgeon's treatment plan for FTASD.

    Study design

    Cross-sectional study.

    Methods

    Eight clinical vignettes of hypothetical patients with FTASD (including age, sex, and activity level) were presented to members of the Magellan Society. A second set of matched vignettes with patient preferences and clinical variables were also presented. The vignettes represented scenarios in which evidence does not favor one treatment over another. Respondents were asked how they would manage each hypothetical case. Respondents also estimated the risk of redislocation for the nonoperative cases for comparison with the published rates. Finally, respondents completed a Likert-scale questionnaire to determine their perceptions on factors influencing their decisions.

    Results

    A total of 103 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey; 48% practiced in an academic hospital; 79% were in practice for 10 years or longer; and 75% had completed a sports medicine fellowship. Patient preferences were the single most important factor influencing treatment recommendation, with activity type and age also important. Just 62% of the surgeon estimates of the risk of redislocation were consistent with the published rates. The inclusion of patient preferences to clinical variables changed treatment recommendations in 62.5% of our hypothetical cases. Respondents rated patient treatment preference as the leading factor in their treatment decision making.

    Conclusion

    Patient preferences were important when deciding the appropriate treatment for FTASD. Respondents were inconsistent when applying evidence in their decision making and estimates of recurrent instability. Decision support tools that deliver patient preferences and personalized evidence-based outcome estimates improve the quality of decision making at the point of care.