ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2016
The cost effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Interspinous Spacers in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Mapping Gap and Scoping Review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).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 · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Dynamic Interspinous Spacer (Coflex®) and Static Spacer (X-STOP ®) compared to Laminectomy (LAMI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsA decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic literature review in relevant databases including PUBMED and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was performed using the STATA statistical package and a random model was used to collect measures of mean difference of visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score before and after intervention in X-stop, Coflex and LAMI (95% confidence intervals). Cost data were obtained from provider and associated literature based on health care provider prospective. We assumed that the probability of the success rate of surgery in each intervention from associated literature and calculated Incremental cost effectiveness ratio. A one-way sensitivity analysis was also carried out.
resultsTwenty-four out of 294 studies are included in the Meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate of the mean difference of VAS pain score were 3.49 (95% CI 3.7-4.2) and 4.14 (95% CI 3.09- 5.19) for X-stop and Coflex, respectively. In addition, we assumed the overall pooled estimate of 5.3 (95% CI 2.15-7.4) on the basis of literature for LAMI. The average cost per LAMI surgery, X-stop and Coflex was US$ 3019, US$ 2022 and US$ 2566, respectively. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio of X-stop and Coflex versus LAMI was US$ 665.9 and US$ 780.7, respectively.
conclusionStatic Interspinous Spacer (X-stop) appears to be the most cost-effective treatment strategy in base case scenario with success rate of LAMI (range between (55%-70%). A sensitivity analysis shows that the increase probability of success rate of LAMI was more than 70 % and less than 55% which lead to the cost effectiveness of the Coflex intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27390709PMC4898842What 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.