Observational studyJournal of anesthesia2016
Socioeconomic value of intervention for chronic pain.
Observational study in Journal of anesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review of the Variation in Pain Catastrophizing Scale Reference Scores Based on Language Version and Country in Patients with Chronic Primary (Non-specific) Pain.Pain and therapy · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness-based mental health promotion program: economic evaluation of a nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity score matching.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Cross-sectional International Multicenter Study on Quality of Life and Reasons for Abandonment of Upper Limb Prostheses.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- Reliability and validity of the Athens Insomnia Scale in chronic pain patients.Journal of pain research · 2018Article
- Impact of Botox-A SNAP-25 protein expression and the mechanism of inhibitory neurotransmitter imbalance in chronic sciatic nerve pain rat model.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- The economic and humanistic costs of chronic lower back pain in Japan.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of pain treatments in two pain centers in Japan.
methodsThe study population comprised 91 patients receiving various treatments for chronic pain, which were divided into three categories: (1) medication, (2) medication + nerve block, and (3) other modalities (exercise and/or pain education). Pain was assessed using the Pain Disability Assessment Scale (PDAS) score, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) score, and EQ-5D score. First, the reliability of the EQ-5D score first assessed by evaluating the correlation this score with those of the other pain-related evaluation instruments, and then the cost effectiveness of the pain treatments was evaluated. Evaluation of medical costs was based on data provided from the Management Services of the hospital, which in turn were based on national health scheme medical treatment fees. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) value was calculated from the EQ-5D score, converted to 12 months, and then used for cost-benefit analysis along with medical treatment fees.
resultsAccording to the recent IASP classification, more patients had chronic neuropathic pain (41) than chronic primary pain (37 patients) or chronic musculoskeletal pain (27 patients). There was a significant correlation between the EQ-5D score and the PDAS, HADS, and PCS scores, which demonstrated the reliability of the EQ-5D score. Significant improvement in the HADS, PCS, and EQ-5D scores was noted after 3 months of pain treatment. Calculation of the cost-effectiveness based on the estimated annual medical treatment cost and QALY revealed a mean value of US $45,879 ± 103,155 per QALY (median US $16,903), indicating adequate socioeconomic utility.
conclusionBased on our results, the EQ-5D is reliable for evaluating chronic pain in patients. The medico-economic balance was appropriate for all treatments provided in two comprehensive pain centers in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27002511What 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.