Evidence search strategy and study selection
A single search was conducted to identify clinical, technological and economic evidence. Please see Evidence search strategies and study selection for details of the evidence searches.
Included and excluded studies
A total of 1907 records were retrieved by the database searches plus 90 records identified by other sources. Of these, 654 records were excluded as duplicates, resulting in 1343 records to be screened by title and abstract. From this screening, 75 records were selected for full-text retrieval. In total, the review included four studies that informed health state costs and utilities: these are summarised in Table 17
| Study name, design and location | Intervention(s) and comparator | Participants and setting length of follow-up | Relevant outcomes and key findings | EAG comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low et al.32 | Intervention: | Participants: | Primary outcome: | This study was used to inform TP,TN, FP and FN utilities for hip fracture in the economic model |
| CEA | DECT supplementing SECT | 70-years-old female (base case) | Utilities | |
| Singapore | SECT alone | Setting: | Secondary outcomes: | |
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.005 | Comparator: MRI | ED | Sensitivity, Specificity | |
| Published article | Follow-up: Modelled time horizon: Lifetime | Costs | ||
| Judge et al.33 | Intervention: Changes to secondary prevention services at England hospitals between 2003 and 2012 [fracture liaison nurse (FLN) care and orthogeriatrician (OG) care] | Participants: 43 health professionals working in fracture prevention services in secondary care | Primary outcome: | This study was used to inform TP,TN, FP and FN costs (UK) for hip fracture in the economic model |
| Service evaluation study with health economic analysis | Comparator: Usual care (no OG or FLN) | Setting: Acute hospitals in England | Costs | |
| England (UK) | Follow-up (patient): 2.6 years from index hip fracture | Secondary outcomes: | ||
| www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385615/ | Modelled time horizon in CEA: Lifetime | Utilities | ||
| Published article | ||||
| Nwankwo et al.34 | Intervention: Removable brace | Participants: Patients presented to hospital with ankle fracture | Primary outcome: | This study was used to inform TP,TN, FP and FN costs and utilities for ankle/foot fracture in the economic model |
| Trial based CEA | Setting: Acute hospital | Utilities and costs | ||
| UK, https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.36.BJO-2022-0036, Published article | Follow-up: Modelled time horizon: 1 year | |||
| Rua et al.35 | Intervention: Immediate MRI | Participants: Participants (n = 132) were recruited from the ED at a hospital in central | Primary outcome: | This study was used to inform TP,TN, FP and FN costs and utilities for Hand/wrist fracture in the economic model |
| Trial based CEA, UK, Published article | Comparator: No further imaging | London. Setting: ED | ||
| Follow-up: Modelled time horizon: 6 months |
A list of studies excluded along with the rationale for exclusion is provided in Appendix 3. A PRISMA diagram of the search and screen process is provided in Appendix 2.