ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2014
Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic belt effects on pelvic morphometry, muscle activity and body balance in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using a novel hydroxyapatite-coated screw: final 2-year clinical and radiographic results.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Article
- International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2020 Update-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion (for Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain): Coverage Indications, Limitations, and Medical Necessity.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2019Review
- Patient Reported Outcomes from Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.Asian spine journal · 2017Article
- Geographic Variation in Diagnostic Ability and Quality of Care Metrics: A Case Study of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Low Back Pain.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing · 2017Article
- Ablation of the sacroiliac joint using MR-guided high intensity focused ultrasound: a preliminary experiment in a swine model.Journal of therapeutic ultrasound · 2017Article
- Two-Year Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction.International journal of spine surgery · 2016Article
- Ignoring the sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain is costly.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
- Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2014Article
- Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants.The open orthopaedics journal · 2014Article
- Sacroiliac joint pain: burden of disease.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow back pain is common and originates in the sacroiliac (SI) joint in 15%-30% of cases. Traditional SI joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis treatments include nonoperative care or open SI joint fusion. To evaluate the usefulness of newly developed minimally-invasive technologies, the costs of traditional treatments must be better understood. We assessed the costs of nonoperative care for SI joint disruption to commercial payers in the United States (US).
methodsA retrospective study of claim-level medical resource use and associated costs used the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters as well as Medicare Supplemental Databases of Truven Healthcare. Patients with a primary ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for SI joint disruption (720.2, 724.6, 739.4, 846.9, or 847.3), an initial date of diagnosis from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 (index date), and continuous enrollment for ≥1 year before and 3 years after the index date were included. Claims attributable to SI joint disruption with a primary or secondary ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of 71x.xx, 72x.xx, 73x.xx, or 84x.xx were identified; the 3-year medical resource use-associated reimbursement and outpatient pain medication costs (measured in 2011 US dollars) were tabulated across practice settings. A subgroup analysis was performed among patients with lumbar spinal fusion.
resultsThe mean 3-year direct, attributable medical costs were $16,196 (standard deviation [SD] $28,592) per privately-insured patient (N=78,533). Among patients with lumbar spinal fusion (N=434), attributable 3-year mean costs were $91,720 (SD $75,502) per patient compared to $15,776 (SD $27,542) per patient among patients without lumbar spinal fusion (N=78,099). Overall, inpatient hospitalizations (19.4%), hospital outpatient visits and procedures (14.0%), and outpatient pain medications (9.6%) accounted for the largest proportion of costs. The estimated 3-year insurance payments attributable to SI joint disruption were $1.6 billion per 100,000 commercial payer beneficiaries.
conclusionThe economic burden of SI joint disruption among privately-insured patients in the US is substantial, highlighting the need for more cost-effective therapies.
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.