Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27001136›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

Cost-effectiveness of manual therapy versus physiotherapy in patients with sub-acute and chronic neck pain: a randomised controlled trial.

J M van Dongen, R Groeneweg, S M Rubinstein, J E Bosmans, R A B Oostendorp, R W J G Ostelo, M W van Tulder

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00713843 (Effectiveness of Manual Therapy and Physical Therapy in Patients With Subacute and Chronic Non-specific Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT00713843 nacompletednot on this map

Effectiveness of Manual Therapy and Physical Therapy in Patients With Subacute and Chronic Non-specific Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRadboud University Medical CenterRan2008 to 2014Enrolled180ConditionsNeck PainArmsManual Therapy Utrecht, Physical Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Massage for neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. 'Next steps' for researching orthopedic manual therapy.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

J M van DongenDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.m.van.dongen@vu.nl.
R GroenewegDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S M RubinsteinDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J E BosmansDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R A B OostendorpScientific Institute for Quality of Health Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
R W J G OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M W van TulderDepartment of Health Sciences & EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLAvans University of Applied Sciences · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy according to the Utrecht School (MTU) in comparison with physiotherapy (PT) in sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain patients from a societal perspective.

methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 52-week randomized controlled trial, in which 90 patients were randomized to the MTU group and 91 to the PT group. Clinical outcomes included perceived recovery (yes/no), functional status (continuous and yes/no), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. To estimate statistical uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques were used.

resultsAfter 52 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. During follow-up, intervention costs (β:€-32; 95 %CI: -54 to -10) and healthcare costs (β:€-126; 95 %CI: -235 to -32) were significantly lower in the MTU group than in the PT group, whereas unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher (β:€186; 95 %CI:19-557). Societal costs did not significantly differ between groups (β:€-96; 95 %CI:-1975-2022). For QALYs and functional status (yes/no), the maximum probability of MTU being cost-effective in comparison with PT was low (≤0.54). For perceived recovery (yes/no) and functional status (continuous), a large amount of money must be paid per additional unit of effect to reach a reasonable probability of cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsFrom a societal perspective, MTU was not cost-effective in comparison with PT in patients with sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain for perceived recovery, functional status, and QALYs. As no clear total societal cost and effect differences were found between MTU and PT, the decision about what intervention to administer, reimburse, and/or implement can be based on the preferences of the patient and the decision-maker at hand.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

Indexed as

AdultChronic PainCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal ManipulationsNeck PainNetherlandsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and QuestionnairesEconomic evaluationMusculoskeletal manipulationPhysical therapy modalities

Identifiers

PMID27001136
OpenAlexW2303225079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.