We have located links that may give you full text access.
Cost-effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Cervical Spine Clearance of Neurologically Intact Patients With Blunt Trauma.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 2018 January
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for cervical clearance after a negative cervical computed tomography (CT) scan result in alert patients with blunt trauma who are neurologically intact is not infrequent, despite poor evidence in regard to its utility. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility and cost-effectiveness of using MRI versus no follow-up in this patient population.
METHODS: A modeling-based decision analysis was performed during the lifetime of a 40-year-old individual from a societal perspective. The 2 strategies compared were no follow-up and MRI. A Markov model with a 3% discount rate was used with parameters from the literature. Base cases and probabilistic and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the strategies.
RESULTS: The cost of MRI follow-up was $11,477, with a health benefit of 24.03 quality-adjusted life-years; the cost of no follow-up was $6,432, with a health benefit of 24.08 quality-adjusted life-years. No follow-up was the dominant strategy, with a lower cost and a higher utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed no follow-up to be the better strategy in all 10,000 iterations. No follow-up was the better strategy irrespective of the negative predictive value of initial CT result, and it remained the better strategy when the incidence of missed unstable injury resulting in permanent neurologic deficits was less than 64.2% and the incidence of patients immobilized with a hard collar who still received cord injury was greater than 19.7%. Multiple 3-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
CONCLUSION: MRI is not cost-effective for further evaluation of unstable injury in neurologically intact patients with blunt trauma after a negative cervical spine CT result.
METHODS: A modeling-based decision analysis was performed during the lifetime of a 40-year-old individual from a societal perspective. The 2 strategies compared were no follow-up and MRI. A Markov model with a 3% discount rate was used with parameters from the literature. Base cases and probabilistic and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the strategies.
RESULTS: The cost of MRI follow-up was $11,477, with a health benefit of 24.03 quality-adjusted life-years; the cost of no follow-up was $6,432, with a health benefit of 24.08 quality-adjusted life-years. No follow-up was the dominant strategy, with a lower cost and a higher utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed no follow-up to be the better strategy in all 10,000 iterations. No follow-up was the better strategy irrespective of the negative predictive value of initial CT result, and it remained the better strategy when the incidence of missed unstable injury resulting in permanent neurologic deficits was less than 64.2% and the incidence of patients immobilized with a hard collar who still received cord injury was greater than 19.7%. Multiple 3-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
CONCLUSION: MRI is not cost-effective for further evaluation of unstable injury in neurologically intact patients with blunt trauma after a negative cervical spine CT result.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app