Title of article :
EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study
Author/Authors :
Mahboub-Ahari, Alireza Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management - Department of Health Service Management - Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran , Hajebrahimi, Sakineh Iranian Center for Evidence-Based Medicine - Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran , Yusefi, Mahmoud Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management - Department of Health Service Management - Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran , Velayati, Ashraf Department of Educational Management - Economics and Policy - School of Medical Education - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract :
Background: EOS is a 2D/3D muscle skeletal diagnostic imaging system. The device has been
developed to produce a high quality 2D, full body radiographs in standing, sitting and squatting positions.
Three dimensional images can be reconstructed via sterEOS software. This Health Technology
Assessment study aimed to investigate efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new emerged
EOS imaging system in comparison with conventional x-ray radiographic techniques.
Methods: All cost and outcome data were assessed from Iran's Ministry of Health Perspective. Data
for clinical effectiveness was extracted using a rigorous systematic review. As clinical outcomes the
rate of x-ray emission and related quality of life were compared with Computed Radiography (CR)
and Digital Radiography (DR). Standard costing method was conducted to find related direct medical
costs. In order to examine robustness of the calculated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios
(ICERs) we used two-way sensitivity analysis. GDP Per capita of Islamic Republic of Iran (2012)
adopted as cost-effectiveness threshold.
Results: Review of related literature highlighted the lack of rigorous evidence for clinical outcomes.
Ultra low dose EOS imaging device is known as a safe intervention because of FDA, CE and
CSA certificates. The rate of emitted X-ray was 2 to 18 fold lower for EOS compared to the conventional
techniques (p<0.001). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio for EOS relative to CR calculated
$50706 in baseline analysis (the first scenario) and $50714, $9446 respectively for the second
and third scenarios. Considering the value of neither $42146 as upper limit, nor the first neither the
second scenario could pass the cost-effectiveness threshold for Iran.
Conclusion: EOS imaging technique might not be considered as a cost-effective intervention in
routine practice of health system, especially within in-patient wards. Scenario analysis shows that,
only in an optimum condition such as lower assembling costs and higher utilization rates, the device
can be recruited for research and therapeutic purposes in pediatric orthopedic centers.
Keywords :
Cost-effectiveness , Health Technology Assessment , Radiography , EOS imaging
Journal title :
Astroparticle Physics
