Trial reportBMC family practice2013
Cost-effectiveness of supported self-management for CFS/ME patients in primary care.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- General medical services by non-medical health professionals: a systematic quantitative review of economic evaluations in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of chronic fatigue self-management versus usual care: a pilot randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2014Trial
- The Development of a Consistent Europe-Wide Approach to Investigating the Economic Impact of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS): A Report from the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Cost-Utility of Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.Fatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior · 2017Article
- Investigating unexplained fatigue in general practice with a particular focus on CFS/ME.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Self-Fitting Hearing Aids: Status Quo and Future Predictions.Trends in hearing · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNurse led self-help treatments for people with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis (CFS/ME) have been shown to be effective in reducing fatigue but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.
methodsCost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a single blind randomised controlled trial comparing pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) and supportive listening (SL) delivered by primary care nurses, and treatment as usual (TAU) delivered by the general practitioner (GP) in North West England. A within trial analysis was conducted comparing the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured within the time frame of the trial. 296 patients aged 18 and over with CFS/ME diagnosed using the Oxford criteria were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
resultsTreatment as usual is less expensive and leads to better patient outcomes compared with Supportive Listening. Treatment as usual is also less expensive than Pragmatic Rehabilitation. PR was effective at reducing fatigue in the short term, but the impact of the intervention on QALYs was uncertain. However, based on the results of this trial, PR is unlikely to be cost-effective in this patient population.
conclusionsThis analysis does not support the introduction of SL. Any benefits generated by PR are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant recommending PR for this patient group on cost-effectiveness grounds alone. However, dissatisfaction with current treatment options means simply continuing with 'treatment as usual' in primary care is unlikely to be acceptable to patients and practitioners.
trial registrationThe trial registration number is IRCTN74156610.
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.