ArticleThe Korean journal of pain2024
Comparison of international medical costs for interventional pain treatment: a focus on Korea and Japan.
Article in The Korean journal of pain, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The burden of inflammatory bowel disease in five East Asian countries an analysis based on the global burden of disease study 1990-2021.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Determination of the Most Suitable Cut-Off Point of the Cervical Foraminal Cross-Sectional Area at the C5/6 Level to Predict Cervical Foraminal Bony Stenosis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of intramuscular electrical stimulation using conventional and inverse electrode placement methods on pressure pain threshold and electromyographic activity of the upper trapezius muscle with myofascial trigger points: a randomized clinical trial.The Korean journal of pain · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rise in national health care costs has emerged as a global problem given the ever-aging population and rapid development of medical technology. The utilization of interventional pain management has, similarly, shown a continued rise worldwide. This study evaluates the differences in the medical costs in the field of interventional pain treatment (IPT) between two countries: Korea and Japan. Methods: Korean medical insurance costs for 2019 related to pain management focused on IPT were compared to those of Japan. Purchasing power parity (PPP) was used to adjust the exchange rate differences and to compare prices in consideration of the respective societies' economic power. Results: The cost of trigger point injections in Japan was 1.06 times higher than that of Korea, whereas the perineural and intraarticular injection prices were lower in Japan. The cost of epidural blocks was higher in Japan compared to Korea in both cervical/thoracic and lumbar regions. As for blocks of peripheral branches of spinal nerves, the cost of scapular nerve blocks in Japan was lower than that in Korea, given a PPP ratio 0.09. For nerve blocks in which fluoroscopy guidance is mandatory, the costs of epidurography in Japan were greater than those in Korea, given a PPP ratio 1.04. Conclusions: This is the first comparative study focusing on the medical costs related to IPT between Korea and Japan, which reveals that the costs differed along various categories. Further comparisons reflecting more diverse countries and socio-economic aspects will be required.
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.