Table 6 Study characteristics based on decision rules, ICER, conclusion of the study and sensibility analysis
From: Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review
Author | Decision rules | ICER | Conclusion | Sensibility analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Wagner et al., 2011 | Unspecified | -25,770 suggesting dominance of the robot over user care | Robot is cost-effective | The results were not sensitive to the source of veteran’s affairs (VA) cost data. Changing of the discount rate had a very little effect on the results because the robot’s lifespan was relatively short |
Hesse et al.,2014 | Unspecified | Not calculated | The treatment costs for Robot-assisted gait therapy were less than individual arm therapy’s | Note done |
Stefano et al., 2014 | Unspecified | Not calculated | Robotic technology generates savings cost for the National Health Care System. | Not done |
Lloréns et al., 2016 | Unspecified | Not calculated | VR-based telerehabilitation programs can save costs, mainly derived from transportation services | Not done |
Bustamante Valles et al., 2016 | Unspecified | Not calculated | Robot Gym therapy is more or as cost-effective as traditional therapy | Not done |
Housley et al., 2016 | Unspecified | Not calculated | The results of this study demonstrate a substantial (64.97%) savings for the VA healthcare system. | Not done |
Adie et al., 2017 | Not done | WiiTM arm is dominated by the usual care | The WiiTM was more expensive than arm exercises The estimate of probability that the WiiTM arm is dominated is 0.866 | The use of simple imputation did not change the observed findings |
Islam and Brunner, 2019 | Unspecified | Not calculated | No cost-savings for VR were achieved due the same therapist time spent in VR and CT Cost saving increase when more patients train with VR | Not done |
Prvu Bettger et al., 2020 | Unspecified | Not calculated | Patients who received VPT had lower total posthospital costs at 12 weeks compared with patients who received usual care. Outcomes: All outcomes for all time-periods assessed were similar between groups | Not done |
Rémy-Néris et al., 2021 | WTP values: €50-100,000/QALY (59,240-118,480$US) | Robot is not cost-effective | There was no between-group difference in cost utility at M12 (12 months) | Not done |
Fernandez-Garcia et al., 2021 | WTP values: £0, £10 000, £20 000, £30 000, £50 000 | £6 095 | The usual care was the most cost-effective rehabilitation method for patients who had a stroke with functional limitation of the upper limb | The sensitivity analysis confirmed the results of the base-case analysis. The different scenarios explored did not change the direction of the results. Robot-assisted training was consistently dominated on average by usual care, regardless of the scenario. The variations in costs imputed to missing data did not alter the conclusions. Extending the lifespan of the robotic gym system also did not affect the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. |