Observational studyBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of collaborative treatment with Korean and Western medicine in patients with facial palsy: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. 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.
- Clinical effectiveness and economic evaluation of acupoint injection for the treatment of primary insomnia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation of Pharmacopuncture for Adhesive Capsulitis Alongside a Pilot Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Pharmacopuncture and Physical Therapy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Treatment With Korean and Western Medicine for Primary Headache Disorders: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective and cost-efficient treatment approaches are crucial in healthcare to optimize patient outcomes. This study evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Korean and Western medicine collaborative treatment (CT) with usual care (UC) for patients with facial palsy (FP).
methodsA two-arm comparative, multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted at 11 nationwide hospitals participating in the fourth phase of the national pilot project for CT. A total of 130 FP patients were enrolled at baseline, with follow-up assessments at 4 weeks and 12 weeks post-baseline. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the House-Brackmann Grading Scale (HBGS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L), and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) at all three time points of the study. The cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed using Cost per QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years), Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), and Net Monetary Benefit (NMB).
resultsThe mean HBGS, NRS and EQ-VAS scores significantly improved in both groups over time (each, p < 0.05). Compared to UC, CT demonstrated significantly higher EQ-5D-5L scores (0.94 ± 0.11 vs. 0.91 ± 0.13), and this effect remained significant even after adjusting for age, sex, duration, and income level (β = 0.06, p < 0.05). From a limited societal perspective, the total cost difference between the two groups was not statistically significant; however, the QALYs gained were significantly higher in patients who received CT than those who received UC (0.010 QALYs vs. 0.008 QALYs). The ICER for CT was estimated at 28.1 million Korean Won (KRW) per QALY. The probability that CT would be more cost-effective than UC exceeded 50% at a WTP threshold of 30.5 million KRW per QALY.
conclusionsOur study highlights that CT enhances a better quality of life and is more cost-effective for FP treatment, suggesting it is a valuable alternative to usual care. Further large-scale clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to explore its broader application and validate these findings.
trial registrationThe study design was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) of South Korea at https://cris.nih.go.kr/ (KCT0007682) on September 07, 2022.
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.