Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26651828›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2015

Is exposure in vivo cost-effective for chronic low back pain? A trial-based economic evaluation.

Marielle E J B Goossens, Reina J A de Kinderen, Maaike Leeuw, Jeroen R de Jong, Joop Ruijgrok, Silvia M A A Evers, Johan W S Vlaeyen

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Treatment "ExposureJournal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marielle E J B GoossensDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. marielle.goossens@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Reina J A de KinderenCAPHRI - School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. reina.dekinderen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Maaike LeeuwAdelante, Rehabilitation Foundation Hoensbroek, Zandbergseweg 111, 6432 CC, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands. m.leeuw@adelante-zorggroep.nl.
Jeroen R de JongCAPHRI - School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Rehabilitation Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jeroen.de.jong@mumc.nl.
Joop RuijgrokDepartment of Rehabilitation, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. j.ruijgrok@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Silvia M A A EversCAPHRI - School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. s.evers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Johan W S VlaeyenDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. johannes.vlaeyen@psy.kuleuven.be.
Maastricht University · NLAdelante · NLKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBack pain is one of the most expensive health complaints. Comparing the economic aspects of back pain interventions may therefore contribute to a more efficient use of available resources. This study reports on a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) of two treatments as viewed from a societal perspective: 1) exposure in vivo treatment (EXP), a recently developed cognitive behavioral treatment for patients with chronic low back pain who have elevated pain-related fear and 2) the more commonly used graded activity (GA) treatment.

methodsSixty-two patients with non-specific chronic low back pain received either EXP or GA. Primary data were collected at four participating treatment centers in the Netherlands. Primary outcomes were self-reported disability (for the CEA) and quality-adjusted life years (for the CUA). Program costs, health care utilization, patient and family costs, and production losses were measured by analyzing therapy records and cost diaries. Data was gathered before, during, and after treatment, and at 6 and 12 months after treatment. Non-parametric bootstrap analyses were used to quantify the uncertainty concerning the cost-effectiveness ratio. In addition, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were performed.

resultsEXP showed a tendency to reduce disability, increase quality adjusted life years and decrease costs compared to GA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of both the CEA and CUA are in favor of EXP.

conclusionsBased on these results, implementing EXP for this group of patients seems to be the best decision.

trial registrationISRCTN88087718.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyAdultChronic PainCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPersons with DisabilitiesQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID26651828
PMCPMC4677446
OpenAlexW2189630694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.