ArticleIntegrative medicine research2025
A cost-utility analysis of pharmacopuncture versus physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: A multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04833309 (Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopunture Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this 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.
Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopunture Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "A cost-utility analysis of pharmacopuncture versus physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: A multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial".Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Response to the letter: "Comment on A cost-utility analysis of pharmacopuncture versus physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: A multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial".Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a significant global health issue, contributing to disability and economic strain. Nonpharmacological treatments, such as acupuncture and integrative approaches like pharmacopuncture (PPT), have shown potential in alleviating the burden of cLBP. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PPT compared to physical therapy (PT) for managing cLBP from both healthcare system and societal perspectives. Methods: A multicenter, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted, involving 100 patients with cLBP. Patients were randomized into either the PPT group or the PT group, receiving 10 treatment sessions over five weeks. Utility was measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level scale (EQ-5D-5L) to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were evaluated from healthcare and societal perspectives, including medical costs and productivity loss. Productivity loss was assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the differences in costs by the differences in QALYs between the two groups. Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness. Results: PPT was more cost-effective than PT, particularly from a societal perspective where it demonstrated lower overall costs and improved QALY. From a healthcare system perspective, the ICER of PPT was 16,575 USD per QALY, indicating cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusion: This study highlights PPT as a potentially cost-effective alternative to conventional PT for cLBP, though further research with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up is recommended to validate these results. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04833309), Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0006088).
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.