Abstract

Contents

• NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
• Glossary
• List of abbreviations
• Executive summary
• 1. Background and definition of the decision problem
  • Description of the technology under assessment
  • Comparators
  • Condition(s) and aetiology(ies)
  • Care pathways
  • Outcomes
  • Decision problem
• 2. Assessment design and results by condition or aetiology
  • Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS
  • Adverse effects of diagnostic radiation for patients with orthopaedic conditions
  • Review of existing economic evaluations
  • Description of decision-analytic model
  • Model inputs
  • Analytic methods
  • Cost-effectiveness results
• 3. Discussion
  • Statement of principal findings
  • Strengths and limitations of the assessment
  • Uncertainties
  • Other relevant factors
• 4. Conclusions
  • Implications for service provision
  • Suggested research priorities
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Appendix 1 Literature search strategies
• Appendix 2 Data extraction table: systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS
• Appendix 3 Data extraction table: systematic review of the adverse effects of diagnostic radiation for patients with orthopaedic conditions
• Appendix 4 Table of excluded studies with rationale: systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS
• Appendix 5 Table of excluded studies with rationale: systematic review of the adverse effects of diagnostic radiation for patients with orthopaedic conditions
• Appendix 6 Number of episodes and number of patients per ICD-10 code during 2008–9
• Appendix 7 Number of outpatient appointments per ICD-10 code during 2008–9
• Appendix 8 Model inputs
• Appendix 9 Protocol (submitted 28 October 2010)
• Health Technology Assessment programme

Suggested citation:

McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, Yang H, Stirk L, Gummerson N, et al. EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(14).

Declared competing interests of the authors: none

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 10/67/01. The protocol was agreed in October 2010. The assessment report began editorial review in March 2011 and was accepted for publication in July 2011.The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.