Background: Identifying variation in musculoskeletal service costs requires the use of specific standardized metrics. There has been a large focus on costing, efficiency, and standardized metrics within the acute musculoskeletal setting, but far less attention in primary care and community settings. Objectives: To (a) assess the quality of costing methods used within musculoskeletal economic analyses based primarily in primary and community settings and (b) identify which cost variables are the key drivers of musculoskeletal health care costs within these settings. Methods: Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, BNI, and HBE electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of costing methods using an established checklist. Results: Twenty-two studies met the review inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated moderate- to high-quality costing methods. Costing issues included studies failing to fully justify the economic perspective, and not distinguishing between short- and long-run costs. Highest unit costs were hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and imaging. Highest mean utilization were the following: general practitioner (GP) visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Highest mean costs per patient were GP visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Conclusion: This review identified a number of key resource use variables that are driving musculoskeletal health care costs in the community/primary care setting. High utilization of these resources (rather than high unit cost) appears to be the predominant factor increasing mean health care costs. There is, however, need for greater detail with capturing these key cost drivers, to further improve the accuracy of costing information.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are costly. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of the available evidence on resource use and costs for RCTs to support budget planning.
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HealthSTAR from inception until November 30, 2016 without language restrictions. We included any publication reporting empirical data on resource use and costs of RCTs and categorized them depending on whether they reported (i) resource and costs of all aspects at all study stages of an RCT (including conception, planning, preparation, conduct, and all tasks after the last patient has completed the RCT); (ii) on several aspects, (iii) on a single aspect (e.g., recruitment); or (iv) on overall costs for RCTs. Median costs of different recruitment strategies were calculated. Other results (e.g., overall costs) were listed descriptively. All cost data were converted into USD 2017.
A total of 56 articles that reported on cost or resource use of RCTs were included. None of the articles provided empirical resource use and cost data for all aspects of an entire RCT. Eight articles presented resource use and cost data on several aspects (e.g., aggregated cost data of different drug development phases, site-specific costs, selected cost components). Thirty-five articles assessed costs of one specific aspect of an RCT (i.e., 30 on recruitment; five others). The median costs per recruited patient were USD 409 (range: USD 41-6,990). Overall costs of an RCT, as provided in 16 articles, ranged from USD 43-103,254 per patient, and USD 0.2-611.5 Mio per RCT but the methodology of gathering these overall estimates remained unclear in 12 out of 16 articles (75%).
The usefulness of the available empirical evidence on resource use and costs of RCTs is limited. Transparent and comprehensive resource use and cost data are urgently needed to support budget planning for RCTs and help improve sustainability.

As the health care system in the United States (US) transitions toward value-based care, there is an increased emphasis on understanding the cost drivers and high-value procedures within orthopaedics. To date, there has been no systematic review of the economic literature on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
To evaluate the overall evidence base for economic studies published on ACLR in the orthopaedic literature. Data available on the economics of ACLR are summarized and cost drivers associated with the procedure are identified.
Systematic review.
All economic studies (including US-based and non-US-based) published between inception of the MEDLINE database and October 3, 2014, were identified. Given the heterogeneity of the existing evidence base, a qualitative, descriptive approach was used to assess the collective results from the economic studies on ACLR. When applicable, comparisons were made for the following cost-related variables associated with the procedure for economic implications: outpatient versus inpatient surgery (or outpatient vs overnight hospital stay vs >1-night stay); bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft versus hamstring (HS) graft source; autograft versus allograft source; staged unilateral ACLR versus bilateral ACLR in a single setting; single- versus double-bundle technique; ACLR versus nonoperative treatment; and other unique comparisons reported in single studies, including computer-assisted navigation surgery (CANS) versus traditional surgery, early versus delayed ACLR, single- versus double-incision technique, and finally the costs of ACLR without comparison of variables.
A total of 24 studies were identified and included; of these, 17 included studies were cost identification studies. The remaining 7 studies were cost utility analyses that used economic models to investigate the effect of variables such as the cost of allograft tissue, fixation devices, and physical therapy, the percentage and timing of revision surgery, and the cost of revision surgery. Of the 24 studies, there were 3 studies with level 1 evidence, 8 with level 2 evidence, 6 with level 3 evidence, and 7 with level 4 evidence. The following economic comparisons were demonstrated: (1) ACLR is more cost-effective than nonoperative treatment with rehabilitation only (per 3 cost utility analyses); (2) autograft use had lower total costs than allograft use, with operating room supply costs and allograft costs most significant (per 5 cost identification studies and 1 cost utility analysis); (3) results on hamstring versus BPTB graft source are conflicting (per 2 cost identification studies); (4) there is significant cost reduction with an outpatient versus inpatient setting (per 5 studies using cost identification analyses); (5) bilateral ACLR is more cost efficient than 2 unilateral ACLRs in separate settings (per 2 cost identification studies); (6) there are lower costs with similarly successful outcomes between single- and double-bundle technique (per 3 cost identification studies and 2 cost utility analyses).
Results from this review suggest that early single-bundle, single (endoscopic)-incision outpatient ACLR using either BPTB or HS autograft provides the most value. In the setting of bilateral ACL rupture, single-setting bilateral ACLR is more cost-effective than staged unilateral ACLR. Procedures using CANS technology do not yet yield results that are superior to the results of a standard surgical procedure, and CANS has substantially greater costs.