Search

Objectives: The main objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on the core modelling specifications and methodology on the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared to non-surgical management. Another objective of this study is to synthesize evidence of TKR cost and compare it across countries using purchasing power parity (PPP). Methodology: The electronic databases used for this review were MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HTAIn repository, Cost effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, and Google Scholar. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the validity of the methods and transparency in reporting the results. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to check the quality of economic evaluation models of the studies included. The cost of TKR surgery from high income and low- or middle-income countries were extracted and converted to single USD ($) using purchasing power parities (PPP) method. Result: Thirty-two studies were included in this review, out of which eight studies used Markov model, five used regression model, one each reported Marginal structure model, discrete simulation model, decision tree and Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) respectively to assess the cost-effectiveness of TKR. For PPP, twenty-six studies were included in the analysis of TKR cost. The average cost of TKR surgery was the lowest in developing country—India ($3457) and highest in USA ($19568). Conclusion: The findings of this review showed that the Markov model was most widely used in the analysis of the cost effectiveness of TKR. Our review also concluded that the cost of TKR was higher in the developed countries as compared to the developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]