Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16506042›Full record

Trial reportInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2006

Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment in sick-listed patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized, controlled trial with one-year follow-up.

Eline M Meijer, Judith K Sluiter, Arjan Heyma, Klarita Sadiraj, Monique H W Frings-Dresen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Workplace interventions for neck pain in workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Eline M MeijerAcademic Medical Center, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Research Institute AmCOGG, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.m.meijer@amc.uva.nl
Judith K Sluiter
Arjan Heyma
Klarita Sadiraj
Monique H W Frings-Dresen
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLNetherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a return-to-work outpatient multidisciplinary treatment programme for sick-listed workers with non-specific upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints.

methodsA randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up was carried out. Thirty-eight subjects were allocated to multidisciplinary treatment (intervention, n=23), or to usual care provided by occupational health services (n=15). The intervention consisted of psychological and physical sessions provided by a medical specialist, a psychologist, a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist. It aims at reconditioning, "de-medicalizing", unrestrained moving and return-to-work. The intervention process was evaluated on compliance to the protocol and the effectiveness of its components. The individual outcome variable was the severity of complaints. The societal outcomes included return-to-work and costs. Measurements were performed at baseline and after 2, 6 and 12 months. Mixed model analyses were used for analysis.

resultsThe intervention achieves its aims: physical disabilities (P=0.039), kinesiophobia (P<0.001) and physical functioning (P=0.016) improved significantly as compared to usual care. In addition, the intervention was significantly more effective in reducing the severity of complaints than usual care. The intervention was equally effective compared to usual care in terms of return-to-work (86% in the intervention group vs. 73% in the usual care group). The extra total costs and the extra gains in terms of return-to-work were not significantly higher for the intervention as compared to usual care after 12 months.

conclusionMultidisciplinary treatment affects individuals positively, but shows no significant difference in (cost-) effectiveness on the societal level as compared to usual care.

Indexed as

Upper ExtremityCombined Modality TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ManagementFollow-Up StudiesHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesNetherlandsOccupational DiseasesPatient Education as TopicSick LeaveTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16506042
OpenAlexW1979504995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.