Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26440556›Full record

SynthesisDisability and health journal2016

Systematic overview of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation.

Stephanie Howard-Wilsher, Lisa Irvine, Hong Fan, Tom Shakespeare, Marc Suhrcke, Simon Horton, Fiona Poland, Lee Hooper, Fujian Song

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Disability and health journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Impact of Time to Receipt of Prosthesis on Total Healthcare Costs 12 Months Postamputation.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stephanie Howard-WilsherFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Lisa IrvineFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hong FanSchool of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, PR China.
Tom ShakespeareFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Marc SuhrckeFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Simon HortonFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Fiona PolandFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Lee HooperFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Fujian SongFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Electronic address: Fujian.song@uea.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth related rehabilitation is instrumental in improving functioning and promoting participation by people with disabilities. To make clinical and policy decisions about health-related rehabilitation, resource allocation and cost issues need to be considered.

objectivesTo provide an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation.

methodsWe searched multiple databases to identify relevant SRs of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation. Review quality was assessed by AMSTAR checklist.

resultsWe included 64 SRs, most of which included economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review quality was low to moderate (AMSTAR score 5-8) in 35, and high (score 9-11) in 29 of the included SRs. The included SRs addressed various health conditions, including spinal or other pain conditions (n = 14), age-related problems (11), stroke (7), musculoskeletal disorders (6), heart diseases (4), pulmonary (3), mental health problems (3), and injury (3). Physiotherapy was the most commonly evaluated rehabilitation intervention in the included SRs (n = 24). Other commonly evaluated interventions included multidisciplinary programmes (14); behavioral, educational or psychological interventions (11); home-based interventions (11); complementary therapy (6); self-management (6); and occupational therapy (4).

conclusionsAlthough the available evidence is often described as limited, inconsistent or inconclusive, some rehabilitation interventions were cost-effective or showed cost-saving in a variety of disability conditions. Available evidence comes predominantly from high income countries, therefore economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation are urgently required in less resourced settings.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPersons with DisabilitiesCardiac RehabilitationDelivery of Health CareHumansMental DisordersMusculoskeletal DiseasesPhysical Therapy ModalitiesCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationHealth-related rehabilitationSystematic review

Identifiers

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.