ArticleIntegrative medicine research2023
Economic evaluation of acupuncture as an adjunctive treatment with usual care for mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis: A Markov model-based analysis.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research trends and hotspots of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis from 2004 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Early Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intra-articular Delivery of a PBAE-DEX Conjugate for Osteoarthritis in a UK Population.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of collaborative treatment with Korean and Western medicine in patients with facial palsy: a multicenter prospective observational study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Observational
- Model-based economic evaluation of pharmacopuncture for chronic low back pain: a 3-year Markov analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collaborative care (CC), in which acupuncture is combined with usual care (UC), improves clinical outcomes and increases costs in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). We evaluated the economic feasibility of CC for Korean female patients with mild-to-moderate KOA by using a cost-effectiveness approach. Methods: Two alternatives for KOA (1. UC as a comparator; and 2. CC as an intervention) were defined based on clinical guidelines, official Korean statistics, and expert validation. Each alternative was simulated in a Markov model every 6 months for 10 years. Estimates of costs, utilities, and transition probabilities were obtained from official statistics and previous studies. The effectiveness of CC was synthesized from randomized controlled trials. A base-case analysis of a limited societal perspective, univariate sensitivity analysis, and probability sensitivity analysis were performed. An annual discount rate of 4.5% and threshold of 20,000 United States dollar per Quality-adjusted life year (USD/QALY) were applied. Results: Every incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CC calculated from the analyses was sub-threshold. In the base-case analysis, with a limited societal perspective, the ICER was 11,085 USD/QALY. The ICERs from the univariate sensitivity analyses were -2,577-16,748 USD/QALY. The average ICER in the probability sensitivity analysis was 12,412 USD/QALY. When the threshold surpassed 8,000 USD/QALY, the cost-effectiveness of CC exceeded 50%. The probability was 70.27% when the threshold was 20,000 USD/QALY. Conclusions: CC for Korean female patients with mild-to-moderate KOA was generally cost-effective. Considering the limitations of the evidence, we propose a re-evaluation using further clinical studies in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.