ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis for lumbar spinal stenosis in Thailand.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) is an alternative intervention used to relieve pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who do not respond to standard treatment and epidural steroid injection (ESI). Although it provides better and longer pain control, it comes at a higher cost. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in Thailand from a social perspective.
methodsA model-based cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years of PEA in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, aged 50 years. The analysis compared patients who received a single ESI prior to PEA (ESI-PEA), with those receiving two ESIs (ESI-ESI) and the standard treatment. The Markov model simulated patient transitions between health states, including improved, unimproved, and death states, over a 24-month time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of single variables, whereas probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted using Monte Carlo simulations to account for uncertainty across multiple parameters.
resultsThis study revealed that the standard treatment had the lowest cost of THB 242,101, whereas the ESI-PEA had the highest cost of THB 274,250 and the highest QALY of 0.8542. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ESI-ESI and ESI-PEA compared to standard treatment were 961,014 and 1,891,117 THB per QALY, respectively, which exceeded Thailand's willingness to pay threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. Uncertainty analysis indicated that the most influential variable was the utility value of non-improved patients.
conclusionsESI-PEA and ESI-ESI are not cost-effective compared to standard treatment in the Thai context. These findings provide valuable insight for policymakers when considering treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis in resource-limited settings.
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.