Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16687482›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of sports medicine2006

Cost effectiveness of brace, physiotherapy, or both for treatment of tennis elbow.

P A A Struijs, I B C Korthals-de Bos, M W van Tulder, C N van Dijk, L M Bouter, W J J Assendelft

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of sports medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2008
    Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

P A A StruijsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. paastruijs@hotmail.com
I B C Korthals-de Bos
M W van Tulder
C N van Dijk
L M Bouter
W J J Assendelft
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe annual incidence of tennis elbow in the general population is high (1-3%). Tennis elbow often leads to limitation of activities of daily living and work absenteeism. Physiotherapy and braces are the most common treatments.

objectivesThe hypothesis of the trial was that no difference exists in the cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, braces, and a combination of the two for treatment of tennis elbow.

methodsThe trial was designed as a randomised controlled trial with intention to treat analysis. A total of 180 patients with tennis elbow were randomised to brace only (n = 68), physiotherapy (n = 56), or a combination of the two (n = 56). Outcome measures were success rate, severity of complaints, pain, functional disability, and quality of life. Follow up was at six, 26, and 52 weeks. Direct healthcare and non-healthcare costs and indirect costs were measured. Mean cost differences over 12 months were evaluated by applying non-parametric bootstrap techniques.

resultsNo clinically relevant or statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Success rate at 12 months was 89% in the physiotherapy group, 86% in the brace group, and 87% in the combination group. Mean total costs per patient were 2069 euros in the brace only group, 978 euros in the physiotherapy group, and 1256 euros in the combination group. The mean difference in total costs between the physiotherapy and brace group was substantial (1005 euros), although not significant. Cost effectiveness ratios and cost utility ratios showed physiotherapy to be the most cost effective, although this also was not statistically significant.

conclusionNo clinically relevant or statistically significant differences in costs were identified between the three strategies.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismAdultBracesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPhysical Therapy ModalitiesQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID16687482
PMCPMC2564316
OpenAlexW2147729250

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.