Should major trauma fractures be part of a fracture liaison service’s remit: a cost–benefit estimate
Authors' conclusion
The 3-year refracture after a non-MT injury is about half (57%) that of the refracture rate after a MT injury. Extending FLS activity to non-MT patients incurs a significant additional direct cost but remains cost neutral if notional savings gained through reduction in refracture risk are taken into account.
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged 50 or above presenting to the John Hunter Hospital with a fracture in 2018, followed for re-presentation to any Hunter New England Health Service's (HNEHS) facility over 3 years
- Exposure
- Minimal trauma vs non-minimal trauma fractures
- Outcome
- Refracture rate
- Follow-up
- 3 years
Methodological detailsCox proportional hazards regression, micro-costing analysis
- Cox proportional hazards regression
- Micro-costing analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Cost of extending fracture liaison service (FLS) activities to non-MT patients in 2022
- Additional cost
- $198,326 AUD
- Notional loss/saving through refracture risk reduction
- $ - 26,625/ + 26,913 AUD
Predictors of refracture risk
- No clinically available characteristic at presentation predictive of increased refracture risk was identified
Original publication
Should major trauma fractures be part of a fracture liaison service’s remit: a cost–benefit estimate. Osteoporos Int. Published 27 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →