Cargando…

EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study

Background: EOS is a 2D/3D muscle skeletal diagnostic imaging system. The device has been developed to produce a high quality 2D, full body radiographs in standing, sitting and squatting positions. Three dimensional images can be reconstructed via sterEOS software. This Health Technology Assessment...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza, Hajebrahimi, Sakineh, Yusefi, Mahmoud, Velayati, Ashraf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iran University of Medical Sciences 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27390701
_version_ 1782436406851796992
author Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza
Hajebrahimi, Sakineh
Yusefi, Mahmoud
Velayati, Ashraf
author_facet Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza
Hajebrahimi, Sakineh
Yusefi, Mahmoud
Velayati, Ashraf
author_sort Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza
collection PubMed
description Background: EOS is a 2D/3D muscle skeletal diagnostic imaging system. The device has been developed to produce a high quality 2D, full body radiographs in standing, sitting and squatting positions. Three dimensional images can be reconstructed via sterEOS software. This Health Technology Assessment study aimed to investigate efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new emerged EOS imaging system in comparison with conventional x-ray radiographic techniques. Methods: All cost and outcome data were assessed from Iran's Ministry of Health Perspective. Data for clinical effectiveness was extracted using a rigorous systematic review. As clinical outcomes the rate of x-ray emission and related quality of life were compared with Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR). Standard costing method was conducted to find related direct medical costs. In order to examine robustness of the calculated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) we used two-way sensitivity analysis. GDP Per capita of Islamic Republic of Iran (2012) adopted as cost-effectiveness threshold. Results: Review of related literature highlighted the lack of rigorous evidence for clinical outcomes. Ultra low dose EOS imaging device is known as a safe intervention because of FDA, CE and CSA certificates. The rate of emitted X-ray was 2 to 18 fold lower for EOS compared to the conventional techniques (p<0.001). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio for EOS relative to CR calculated $50706 in baseline analysis (the first scenario) and $50714, $9446 respectively for the second and third scenarios. Considering the value of neither $42146 as upper limit, nor the first neither the second scenario could pass the cost-effectiveness threshold for Iran. Conclusion: EOS imaging technique might not be considered as a cost-effective intervention in routine practice of health system, especially within in-patient wards. Scenario analysis shows that, only in an optimum condition such as lower assembling costs and higher utilization rates, the device can be recruited for research and therapeutic purposes in pediatric orthopedic centers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4898869
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Iran University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48988692016-07-07 EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza Hajebrahimi, Sakineh Yusefi, Mahmoud Velayati, Ashraf Med J Islam Repub Iran Original Article Background: EOS is a 2D/3D muscle skeletal diagnostic imaging system. The device has been developed to produce a high quality 2D, full body radiographs in standing, sitting and squatting positions. Three dimensional images can be reconstructed via sterEOS software. This Health Technology Assessment study aimed to investigate efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new emerged EOS imaging system in comparison with conventional x-ray radiographic techniques. Methods: All cost and outcome data were assessed from Iran's Ministry of Health Perspective. Data for clinical effectiveness was extracted using a rigorous systematic review. As clinical outcomes the rate of x-ray emission and related quality of life were compared with Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR). Standard costing method was conducted to find related direct medical costs. In order to examine robustness of the calculated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) we used two-way sensitivity analysis. GDP Per capita of Islamic Republic of Iran (2012) adopted as cost-effectiveness threshold. Results: Review of related literature highlighted the lack of rigorous evidence for clinical outcomes. Ultra low dose EOS imaging device is known as a safe intervention because of FDA, CE and CSA certificates. The rate of emitted X-ray was 2 to 18 fold lower for EOS compared to the conventional techniques (p<0.001). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio for EOS relative to CR calculated $50706 in baseline analysis (the first scenario) and $50714, $9446 respectively for the second and third scenarios. Considering the value of neither $42146 as upper limit, nor the first neither the second scenario could pass the cost-effectiveness threshold for Iran. Conclusion: EOS imaging technique might not be considered as a cost-effective intervention in routine practice of health system, especially within in-patient wards. Scenario analysis shows that, only in an optimum condition such as lower assembling costs and higher utilization rates, the device can be recruited for research and therapeutic purposes in pediatric orthopedic centers. Iran University of Medical Sciences 2016-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4898869/ /pubmed/27390701 Text en © 2016 Iran University of Medical Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0), which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza
Hajebrahimi, Sakineh
Yusefi, Mahmoud
Velayati, Ashraf
EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title_full EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title_fullStr EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title_full_unstemmed EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title_short EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
title_sort eos imaging versus current radiography: a health technology assessment study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27390701
work_keys_str_mv AT mahboubaharialireza eosimagingversuscurrentradiographyahealthtechnologyassessmentstudy
AT hajebrahimisakineh eosimagingversuscurrentradiographyahealthtechnologyassessmentstudy
AT yusefimahmoud eosimagingversuscurrentradiographyahealthtechnologyassessmentstudy
AT velayatiashraf eosimagingversuscurrentradiographyahealthtechnologyassessmentstudy