• Spine · Oct 2011

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Function after spinal treatment, exercise, and rehabilitation: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial.

    • Stephen Morris, Tim P Morris, Alison H McGregor, Caroline J Doré, and Konrad Jamrozik.
    • Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK. steve.morris@ucl.ac.uk
    • Spine. 2011 Oct 1;36(21):1807-14.

    Study DesignCost-effectiveness analysis alongside a factorial randomized controlled trial.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation program and/or an education booklet each compared with usual care for the postoperative management of patients undergoing discectomy or lateral nerve root decompression surgery.Summary Of Background DataThere is little knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of postoperative management of patients after spinal surgery.MethodsA total of 338 patients were recruited into the study between June 2005 and March 2009. Patients were randomized to rehabilitation only, booklet only, rehabilitation plus booklet, or usual care only. Interactions between booklet and rehabilitation were nonsignificant; hence, we compare booklet versus no booklet and rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. We adopt an English National Health Service and personal social services perspective. Data on outcomes and costs are based on patient level data from the trial. A 1-year time horizon was used. Outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years. Health-related quality of life was reported by patients using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). A comprehensive range of health service contacts were included in the cost analysis.ResultsThere were no significant differences in costs or outcomes associated with either intervention. Mean incremental costs and mean quality-adjusted life years gained per patient of booklet versus no booklet were -£87 (95% CI: -£1221 to £1047) and -0.023 (95% CI: -0.068 to 0.023), respectively. Figures for rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation were £160 (95% CI: -£984 to £1304) and 0.002 (95% CI: -0.044 to 0.048), respectively. Neither intervention was cost-effective when compared with the threshold range commonly used to judge whether or not an intervention is cost-effective in the English National Health Service.ConclusionCost-effectiveness evidence does not support use of booklet over no booklet or rehabilitation over no rehabilitation for the postoperative management of patients after spinal surgery.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…