Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34847780›Full record

Trial reportAcupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society2022

Cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture compared with usual care for acute non-specific low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Trygve Skonnord, Arne Fetveit, Holgeir Skjeie, Mette Brekke, Margreth Grotle, Atle Klovning, Eline Aas

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01439412 (Acupuncture in Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain; a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Study in General Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

NCT01439412 nacompletednot on this map

Acupuncture in Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain; a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Study in General Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OsloRan2014 to 2018Enrolled185ConditionsLow Back PainArmsAcupuncture and standard treatment, Standard treatment in general practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trends in acupuncture billing by a large commercial insurer.The American journal of managed care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Trygve SkonnordDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4816-076X
Arne FetveitGeneral Practice Research Unit (AFE), Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Holgeir SkjeieGeneral Practice Research Unit (AFE), Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Mette BrekkeGeneral Practice Research Unit (AFE), Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Margreth GrotleDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Atle KlovningDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Eline AasDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to usual care for acute low back pain (ALBP).

methodsSecondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Norwegian general practice. In total, 171 participants with ALBP ⩽14 days were randomised to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or to an acupuncture group (AG) receiving one additional session of Western medical acupuncture alongside usual care. Primary outcome measures for this cost-effectiveness analysis were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs and societal costs at days 28 and 365, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). The NMB was calculated on the basis of the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of NOK 275,000 (USD 35,628) per QALY gained. Missing data were replaced by multiple chained imputation.

resultsEighty-six participants in the CG and 81 in the AG were included in the analysis. We found no QALY gain at day 28. At day 365, the incremental QALY of 0.035 was statistically significant. The differences in health care costs and societal costs were not statistically significant. Three out of four calculations led to negative ICERs (cost saving) and positive NMBs. For the health care perspective at day 365, the ICER was USD -568 per QALY and the NMB was USD 1265, with 95.9% probability of acupuncture being cost-effective.

conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture for ALBP. The findings indicate that acupuncture may be cost-effective from a 1-year perspective, but more studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01439412 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Indexed as

AcupunctureAcupuncture TherapyLow Back PainCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life Yearsacupuncturecost-effectivenesslow back painrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID34847780
PMCPMC8873285
OpenAlexW3215862499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.