Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30170586›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Corelien J J Kloek, Johanna M van Dongen, Dinny H de Bakker, Daniël Bossen, Joost Dekker, Cindy Veenhof

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. [Postoperative rehabilitation after knee arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Corelien J J KloekTranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. corelien.kloek@hu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7426-7141
Johanna M van DongenDepartment of Health Sciences and EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dinny H de BakkerTranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Daniël BossenACHIEVE Centre of Expertise, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Joost DekkerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cindy VeenhofDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Sciences and Sports, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 525001007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlended physiotherapy, in which physiotherapy sessions and an online application are integrated, might support patients in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce disease related costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise) compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee, from the societal as well as the healthcare perspective.

methodsThis economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 108 patients received e-Exercise, consisting of physiotherapy sessions and a web-application, and 99 patients received usual physiotherapy. Clinical outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L), physical functioning (HOOS/KOOS) and physical activity (Actigraph Accelerometer). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.

resultsIntervention costs and medication costs were significantly lower in e-Exercise compared to usual physiotherapy. Total societal costs and total healthcare costs did not significantly differ between groups. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between groups. For physical functioning and physical activity, the maximum probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was moderate (< 0.82) from both perspectives. For QALYs, the probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was 0.68/0.84 at a willingness to pay of 10,000 Euro and 0.70/0.80 at a willingness to pay of 80,000 Euro per gained QALY, from respectively the societal and the healthcare perspective.

conclusionsE-Exercise itself was significantly cheaper compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, but not cost-effective from the societal- as well as healthcare perspective. The decision between both interventions can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist.

trial registrationNTR4224 (25 October 2013).

Indexed as

AgedCluster AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessExercise TherapyFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneePhysical Therapy ModalitiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID30170586
PMCPMC6119267

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.