Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22527643›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2012

[Efficacy, utility and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment for chronic low back pain].

C Rolli Salathé, A Elfering, M Melloh

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [Body image and low back pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2016
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

C Rolli SalathéInstitut für Psychologie, Universität Bern, Muesmattstr. 45, 3000 Bern, Schweiz. cornelia.rolli@psy.unibe.ch
A Elfering
M Melloh
University of Bern · CHHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualitative criteria, such as efficacy, utility and cost-effectiveness are essential for insurance and reimbursement companies to meet the costs for a multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) for persons with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

methodA systematic search concerning the qualitative criteria of MDT for CLBP presents an overview of the current literature.

resultsThe search revealed 8 systematic reviews which document a moderate efficacy of MDT as a treatment for persons with CLBP although some reported restrictions. Analysis of 6 studies that have not yet been included in previous reviews confirmed the findings from these reviews. The comparison of conservative and surgical treatment for CLBP revealed that long-term outcomes hardly differed in quality, whereas surgical treatment was more expensive and contained more and higher risks. References on moderate to high cost-effectiveness of MDT are represented in 3 original studies.

conclusionThe MDT of CLBP is moderately efficient, purposeful, cost-effective and demonstrate an alternative treatment form to surgical treatment.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterdisciplinary CommunicationActivities of Daily LivingCost-Benefit AnalysisDisability EvaluationHumansInsurance CoverageLow Back PainNational Health ProgramsPain MeasurementPatient Care TeamRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRehabilitation, VocationalSpinal FusionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22527643
OpenAlexW2971812012

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.