Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267108›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines on low back pain management in primary care: is transferability to other countries possible?

Cathrine Elgaard Jensen, Martin Bach Jensen, Allan Riis, Karin Dam Petersen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Long-term results of an intensive cognitive behavioral pain management program for patients with chronic low back pain: a concise report of an extended cohort with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.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 · 2019
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cathrine Elgaard JensenFaculty of Social Sciences, Danish Center for Healthcare Improvements, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Martin Bach JensenResearch Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Allan RiisResearch Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7009-3025
Karin Dam PetersenFaculty of Social Sciences, Danish Center for Healthcare Improvements, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.

resultsThe title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.

conclusionsDespite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLow Back PainPain ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGuideline implementationHEALTH ECONOMICSLow back painPrimary health careTransferability

Identifiers

PMID27267108
PMCPMC4908862
OpenAlexW2413178951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.