Cost-effectiveness analysis of robot-assisted gait training in patients with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy

Klobucká, Stanislava; Klobucký, Robert; Valovičová, Katarína; Šiarnik, Pavol; Kollár, Branislav

doi:10.1186/s12962-023-00475-3

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These reviews suggested that rehabilitation technologies (RT) can be effective in improving clinical outcomes and reducing healthcare costs for people with physical disabilities. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of digital technologies, particularly virtual reality (VR) tools and video games, as well as robotic technologies in the field of motor rehabilitation [ 9 , 21 , 31 ]. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the most recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of digital motor rehabilitation technologies compared to conventional care, considering the latest studies and methodological guidelines for economic evaluations, in order to inform decision-making regarding the adoption of these often-costly technologies in routine rehabilitation care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review

Agbemanyole,

Agbohessou,

Pons

et al. 2024

Health Econ Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%