Systematic reviews (SRs) on the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have predominantly focused on evaluating the effectiveness of various treatments, identifying those that provide the greatest benefits. However, the economic evaluation of these treatments has not been systematically explored. This SR aims to address this gap by evaluating the economic outcomes of the most common treatment modalities for TMDs, including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation and the burden of illness.

This SR will be conducted using the following electronic databases Business Source Complete, CINAHL, EconLit (ProQuest), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Scopus to identify studies evaluating the economic outcomes of treatments for TMDs. The eligibility criteria are as follows: (1) studies examining the costs and/or impact of treatments for TMDs and (2) articles published between 2000 and 2025. The primary outcomes of interest are the economic findings outlined earlier. Data extraction will include the following: author(s), year of publication, country, study objectives, study design, eligibility criteria, TMD diagnosis and screening, study groups, randomisation, blinding, sample size, number of participants invited, enrolled and completed, duration of treatment, follow-up, study duration, settings, assessment instruments, study outcomes, statistical analyses, results, limitations, strengths and funding sources. The quality of studies will be evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist, with risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care’s risk-of-bias tool; where applicable, the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials will be used to detect reporting biases. A narrative synthesis and summary tables will outline study characteristics, economic outcomes and the overall quality of evidence. We will conduct qualitative secondary and sensitivity analyses.

This SR does not require an ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through international and national conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

CRD42024613553.

The hospital-at-home (HaH) model has gained traction as a viable alternative to traditional inpatient care, allowing patients to receive care in their own homes. Despite its growing popularity, there is a lack of comprehensive research addressing effectiveness, safety and factors critical to the successful implementation of HaH programmes. We conducted a scoping review to comprehensively map and summarise the evidence on both admission avoidance and early-supported discharge up until now.

A scoping review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched up to July 2024

We included English-language RCTs published from 2005 onwards, involving adults (≥18 years) receiving acute care at home who would otherwise require hospital admission. Eligible studies evaluated admission avoidance or early supported discharge within HaH settings for acutely ill patients. Studies focusing on outpatient care, non-acute conditions or interventions not aligning with the widely accepted HaH definition were excluded. COVID-19-related studies were also excluded to avoid context-specific bias.

Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, interventions and outcomes including mortality, length of stay, escalation rates, costs and patient and caregiver satisfaction. Implementation facilitators and barriers were also collected. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Results were synthesised descriptively in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Nine RCTs were identified. The review shows that the HaH model is at least as safe as usual care, with lower or comparable mortality rates. Length of stay varied, with some studies reporting longer stays in the HaH group due to cautious clinical practices. Cost analyses often indicate lower healthcare costs with staffing as the largest expense. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was high, but essential implementation factors were not clearly addressed.

The HaH model represents a promising alternative to acute inpatient care for suitable patients. Future research should focus on conducting larger RCTs, expanding the range of conditions suitable for HaH. Despite favourable clinical outcomes, substantial implementation barriers remain underexplored in current RCTs. This underscores the need to identify strategies for successful implementation, including the integration of technological advancements and qualitative insights into patient and caregiver experiences.