Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2003
Cost effectiveness and cost utility of acetylcysteine versus dimethyl sulfoxide for reflex sympathetic dystrophy.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of management strategies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Pain Exposure Physical Therapy versus conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1-a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial.Clinical rehabilitation · 2018Trial
- Evidence based guidelines for complex regional pain syndrome type 1.BMC neurology · 2010Article
- Reflex sympathetic dystrophy: a retrospective epidemiological study of 168 patients.Clinical rheumatology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cost effectiveness and cost utility of acetylcysteine versus dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) for patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), from a societal viewpoint.
designAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a double-dummy, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the Impairment-level Sum Score (ISS). Utilities were determined by the EuroQOL instrument (EQ-5D). Both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. Differences in mean direct, indirect and total costs were estimated. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated by bootstrapping techniques.
resultsBoth groups (DMSO, n = 64; acetylcysteine, n = 67) showed relevant improvement; no differences in effects were found. Only the total direct costs were significantly lower in the DMSO group for the period of 0-52 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that, in general, DMSO generated fewer costs and more effects compared with acetylcysteine. Post-hoc subgroup analyses on cost effectiveness suggested that patients with warm RSD could be best treated with DMSO and patients with cold RSD with acetylcysteine. These results were based on small subsamples.
conclusionIn general, DMSO is the preferred treatment for patients with RSD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.