Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30506022›Full record

ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2018

Cost-utility analysis of interventions to improve effectiveness of exercise therapy for adults with knee osteoarthritis: the BEEP trial.

Jesse Kigozi, Sue Jowett, Elaine Nicholls, Stephanie Tooth, Elaine M Hay, Nadine E Foster, BEEP trial team

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Jesse KigoziArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Sue JowettArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Elaine NichollsArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Stephanie ToothKeele Clinical Trials Unit, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Elaine M HayArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Nadine E FosterArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
BEEP trial team
Keele University · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-015Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10386
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEvidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of enhancing physical therapy exercise programmes in order to improve outcomes for patients with knee OA remains unclear. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of two enhanced physical therapy interventions compared with usual physical therapy care (UC) for adults with knee OA.

methodsA trial-based cost-utility analysis of individually tailored exercise (ITE) or targeted exercise adherence (TEA) compared with UC was undertaken over a period of 18 months. Patient-level costs were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a base-case UK health-care perspective.

resultsThe UC group was associated with lower National Health Service (NHS) costs [ITE-UC: £273.30, 95% CI: £-62.10 to £562.60; TEA-UC: £141.80, 95% CI: £-135.60 to £408.10)] and slightly higher QALY gains (ITE-UC: -0.015, 95% CI: -0.057 to 0.026; TEA-UC: -0.003, 95% CI: -0.045 to 0.038). In the base case, UC was the most likely cost-effective option (probability <40% of ITE or TEA cost-effective at £20 000/QALY). Differences in total costs were attributable to intervention costs, number of visits to NHS consultants and knee surgery, which were higher in both ITE and TEA groups.

conclusionThis is the first economic evaluation comparing usual physical therapy care

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93634563. TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/254 doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-254.

Indexed as

cost-effectivenesscost–utilityeconomic evaluationexerciseknee painosteoarthritis

Identifiers

PMID30506022
PMCPMC6251481
OpenAlexW2806736126

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.