Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Pediatric Imaging: The Evidence (or Lack Thereof) Thus Far

Traumatic hip dislocations in a pediatric cohort: The importance of advanced imaging

Purpose

Given that pediatric traumatic hip dislocations are relatively rare, the purpose of the current study is twofold: first, to contribute a significant cohort to the existing corpus, and second, to provide evidence toward the role that computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging could play in identification and management of this type of injury.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients with traumatic hip dislocation who presented from 2012 to 2022 at a tertiary-level pediatric trauma center. Data regarding demographics, mechanism of injury, imaging, and treatment were tabulated. Outcomes of interest included immobilization length, concomitant injuries, imaging performed and findings, and rates of avascular necrosis, pain, and stiffness. Concomitant injuries were identified using imaging, clinical, and operative notes. Differences between categorical variables were compared using chi-square analysis or Fischer-exact testing, while continuous variables were compared using Student t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests when appropriate.

Results

Thirty-four patients were identified. Postreduction, 28 patients had a cumulative 17 magnetic resonance imaging, 19 computed tomographies, and 1 intraoperative arthrogram. Of these, 16 patients had 19 injuries identified on advanced imaging that were missed on initial radiographs. Eleven of these patients went on to operative treatment. In eight of these, postreduction advanced imaging helped guide the decision for surgery. In four patients, magnetic resonance imaging was necessary to fully characterize injury to the posterior acetabular rim after initial identification on computed tomography. Magnetic resonance imaging was also used to rule out one computed tomography-diagnosed acetabular fracture.

Conclusion

Magnetic resonance imaging is valuable to fully define associated rim and intra-articular injuries following initial treatment of pediatric traumatic hip dislocations.

Level of evidence

Level IV diagnostic study.

A Primer to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of the Literature

Currently, there is a multitude of methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of programs, tools, etc. While cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly used, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a more appropriate method of evaluation in clinical contexts, such as radiology practices, as CEAs use units such as life years gained as opposed to money (as is the case for CBAs). This review examines CEAs performed within the past 15 years to highlight their applications and key findings in the context of medical imaging.

In total, 20 articles published between 2006 and 2022 were identified using a PubMed search for keywords including “cost-effectiveness analysis,” “breast cancer,” and “medical imaging,” with studies lacking a substantial discussion of CEA or a related topic being excluded.

CEAs have traditionally been criticized for lack of a standard methodology, despite their utility in the detection and treatment of various pathologies. Although mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the preferred and cost-effective imaging modalities for breast cancer, other imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, may be more cost-effective in the appropriate clinical context. Different combinations of mammography and MRI screenings for certain breast cancers may also prove to be more cost-effective compared to current mammography/MRI screening schedules.

While CEA has shown potential utility in estimating the costs (per unit of health gained) of different imaging tools, CEA risks ignoring important outcomes not included in the analysis and cannot address if the benefits of the imaging tool exceed its costs, as a CBA would, suggesting the need for combining several economic evaluations for a more complete understanding.

Computed Tomography for Pediatric Pelvic Fractures in Pediatric Versus Adult Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND

Pediatric pelvic fractures are a significant source of morbidity for children in the United States. In the era of specialized care, the relationship between trauma center designation and outcomes remains unknown. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient outcomes when treated at adult trauma centers (ATCs), pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), or dual trauma centers (DTCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the National Trauma Data Bank to identify pediatric (≤14 y) patients suffering pelvic fractures in 2013-2015. DTCs were defined as centers with level I or II trauma designation for both pediatric and adult care. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, and computed tomography (CT) utilization.

RESULTS

There were 4260 patients who met study criteria. Of these, 1290 (22%) were treated at ATCs, 1332 (30%) at PTCs, and 2120 (48%) at DTCs. Pediatric patients treated at ATCs were more likely to suffer a complication or receive a CT scan. On multivariate analysis, patients treated at PTCs and DTCs were significantly less likely to have a recorded complication or receive head, thoracic, or whole-body CT scans compared with ATCs. DTCs, but not PTCs, used fewer abdominal CT scans. Mortality rates were not predicted by center designation.

CONCLUSIONS

For pediatric pelvic fractures, centers with pediatric trauma designation (PTCs and DTCs) appear to have better outcomes despite significantly less use of CT scans. Further studies are needed to determine optimal management of pediatric pelvic fractures while minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective.

The Methodological Quality and Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) have become popular types of economic evaluations (EE) used for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare resource allocation. Newborn screening programs (NBS) can have significant clinical benefits for society, and cost-effectiveness analysis may help to select the optimal strategy among different screening programs, including the no-screening option, on different conditions. These economic analyses of NBS, however, are hindered by several methodological challenges. This study explored the methodological quality in recent NBS economic evaluations and analyzed the main challenges and strategies adopted by researchers to deal with them.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA methodology to identify CEAs and CUAs of NBS. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed quantitatively using a specific guideline for the quality assessment of NBS economic evaluations, by calculating a general score for each EE. Challenges in the studies were then explored using thematic analysis as a qualitative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative analysis showed that the methodological quality of NBS economic evaluations was heterogeneous. Lack of clear description of items related to results, discussion, and discounting were the most frequent flaws. Methodological challenges in performing EEs of neonatal screenings include the adoption of a long time horizon, the use of quality-adjusted life years as health outcome measure, and the assessment of costs beyond the screening interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review can support future economic evaluation research, aiding researchers to develop a methodological guidance to perform EEs aimed at producing solid results to inform decisions for resource allocation in neonatal screening.