Economic evaluations and randomized trials in spinal disorders: principles and methods

Economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological treatments for fibromyalgia: a systematic review with meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but there is a lack of knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. The aim of this study was to systematically review economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological interventions for the treatment of fibromyalgia. The search was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment. Economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological interventions for adult patients with fibromyalgia were included. Primary outcomes were healthcare and societal costs, and quality-adjusted life-years, and secondary outcomes were any disease-specific clinical outcome. Costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, when possible. Eleven studies were included, of which 7 compared a psychological intervention with another intervention or usual care/control. Over a 6-month time horizon, healthcare and societal costs of the psychological intervention were significantly lower than usual care (mean difference: $-2087, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3061 to -1112; mean difference: $-2411, 95% CI: -3582 to -1240, respectively), and healthcare costs were significantly lower for the psychological intervention compared with a pharmacological intervention (mean difference: $-1443, 95% CI: -2165 to -721). Over a 12-month time horizon, healthcare costs for the psychological intervention were significantly lower than for usual care (mean difference: $-538, 95% CI: -917 to -158). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for quality-adjusted life-years and impact of fibromyalgia showed that the psychological intervention was cost-effective compared with other interventions and control conditions. There is a need of more economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials with interventions recommended for the treatment of fibromyalgia, such as physical exercise.

Interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

BACKGROUND

As resources for healthcare are scarce, decision-makers increasingly rely on economic evaluations when making reimbursement decisions about new health technologies, such as drugs, procedures, devices, and equipment. Economic evaluations compare the costs and effects of two or more interventions. Musculoskeletal disorders have a high prevalence and result in high levels of disability and high costs worldwide. Because physical therapy interventions are usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders, economic evaluations of such interventions are becoming increasingly important for stakeholders in the field of physical therapy, including physical therapists, decision-makers, and reseachers. However, economic evaluations are relatively difficult to interpret for the majority of stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To support physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy interpreting trial-based economic evaluations and translating the results of such studies to clinical practice.

METHODS

The design, analysis, and interpretation of economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials are discussed. To further illustrate and explain these concepts, we use a case study assessing the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to standard advice in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations are increasingly being used in healthcare decision-making. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that their design, conduct, and analysis are state-of-the-art and that their interpretation is adequate. This masterclass will help physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy to critically appraise the quality and results of trial-based economic evaluations and to apply the results of such studies to their own clinical practice and setting.

Economic evaluation of the dr. Bart app in people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis

Objective

To evaluate the cost‐utility and cost‐effectiveness of the dr. Bart app compared to usual care in people with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knees and hips, applying a health care payer perspective.

Methods

This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6‐month randomized controlled trial that included 427 participants. The dr. Bart app is a stand‐alone eHealth application that invites users to select pre‐formulated goals (i.e., “tiny habits”) and triggers for a healthier lifestyle. Self‐reported outcome measures were health care costs, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol 5‐dimension 3‐level (EQ‐5D‐3L) descriptive system, the EuroQol visual analog scale (QALY VAS), patient activation measure 13 (PAM‐13), and 5 subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score/Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Missing data were multiply imputed, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.

Results

The mean ± SD age of the study participants was 62.1 ± 7.3 years, and the majority of participants were female (72%). Health care costs were lower in the intervention group compared to the group who received usual care (€−22 [95% confidence interval €−36, −3]). For QALY and QALY VAS, the probability of the dr. Bart app being cost‐effective compared to usual care was 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, at a willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) of €10,000 and 0.64 and 0.56, respectively, at a WTP of €80.000. For self‐management behavior, symptoms, pain, and activities of daily living, the probability that the dr. Bart app was cost‐effective was >0.82, and the probability that the dr. Bart app was cost‐effective in the areas of activities and quality of life was <0.40, regardless of WTP thresholds.

Conclusion

This economic evaluation showed that costs were lower for the dr. Bart app group compared to the group who received usual care. Given the noninvasive nature of the intervention and the moderate probability of it being cost‐effective for the majority of outcomes, the dr. Bart app has the potential to serve as a tool to provide education and goal setting in OA and its treatment options.

Is Myofascial Release Therapy Cost-Effective When Compared With Manual Therapy to Treat Workers' Mechanical Neck Pains?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to do a cost-benefit analysis of myofascial release therapy (MRT) compared to manual therapy (MT) for treating occupational mechanical neck pain.

METHODS

Variables regarding the outcomes of the intervention were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion. Costs were assessed based on a social perspective using diary costs. Between-groups differences in average cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were assessed using bootstrap parametric techniques. The economic cost-benefit evaluation was with regard to an experimental parallel group study design. There were 59 participants.

RESULTS

Myofascial released therapy showed significant improvement over MT for cervical mobility (side bending, rotation, and craniovertebral angle). The total cost of MRT was approximately 20% less (-$519.81; 95% confidence interval, -$1193.67 to $100.31) than that of MT, although this was not statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that MRT could be associated with lower economic costs.

CONCLUSION

With probabilities of 93.9% and 95.8%, MRT seems to be cost-effective for treating mechanical neck pain without the need to add any additional cost to obtain a better clinical benefit. Consequently, we believe it could be included in the clinical practice guidelines of different Spanish health care institutions.

Economic evaluation of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing worldwide. Obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for both the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, international guidelines recommend all patients with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight receive support to lose weight. However, few overweight patients with this condition receive care to support weight loss. Telephone-based interventions are one potential solution to provide scalable care to the many patients with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese.

Methods

An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between May 19 and June 30, 2015, 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the utility measure and knee pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were the clinical measures of effect. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. Data was collected at baseline, 6 weeks and 26 weeks. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

Results

Mean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were $493 (95%CI: -3513 to 5363) for healthcare costs, $-32 (95%CI: -73 to 13) for medication costs, and $125 (95%CI: -151 to 486) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1197 (95%CI: -2887 to 6106). For QALYs and all clinical measures of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.36 at all willingness-to-pay values.

Conclusions

From a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12615000490572, registered 18th May 2015

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6300-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[ISO 9001 certification of innovation and clinical research departments: Extending the scope of health assessment]

BACKGROUND

The International organization for standardization (ISO) is the world leader in providing industrial and commercial standards and certifications. Beyond medical devices, four French clinical research and innovation departments have received an ISO 9001 certification (the standard for quality management). Simultaneously, medico-economic studies have become increasingly important in the public decision process. Using the clinical research and innovation department from the Léon-Bérard Cancer Center as an example, the purpose of this article is to show how the scope of the ISO 9001 certification has been extended to cover medico-economic studies.

METHOD

All of the processes, procedures, operating modes, documents, and indicators used by the clinical research and innovation department of the Léon-Bérard center were investigated. Literature searches were conducted using Medline keywords. The recommendations from the French national authority for health and other organizations, such as the International society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research (ISPOR), were also considered, as well as the recommendations of the General inspectorate of social affairs.

RESULTS

In accordance with the national and international recommendations, two procedures were created and four procedures were revised at this center. Five indicators of quality and an evaluation chart were developed.

CONCLUSION

By adopting the ISO 9001 certification into its medico-economic studies, the clinical research and innovation department of the Léon-Bérard center has used an innovative approach in the context of the growing importance of economic studies in decision-making.

Economic value of treating lumbar disc herniation in Brazil

OBJECT

Lumbar discectomy is one of the most common surgical spine procedures. In order to understand the value of this surgical care, it is important to understand the costs to the health care system and patient for good results. The objective of this study was to evaluate for the first time the cost-effectiveness of spine surgery in Latin America for lumbar discectomy in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for patients in Brazil.

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective cohort study involving 143 consecutive patients who underwent open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed utilizing the SF-6D, which is derived from a 12-month variation of the SF-36. Direct medical costs included medical reimbursement, costs of hospital care, and overall resource consumption. Disability losses were considered indirect costs. A 4-year horizon with 3% discounting was applied to health-utilities estimates. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying utility gain by 20%. The costs were expressed in Reais (R$) and US dollars ($), applying an exchange rate of 2.4:1 (the rate at the time of manuscript preparation).

RESULTS

The direct and indirect costs of open lumbar discectomy were estimated at an average of R$3426.72 ($1427.80) and R$2027.67 ($844.86), respectively. The mean total cost of treatment was estimated at R$5454.40 ($2272.66) (SD R$2709.17 [$1128.82]). The SF-6D utility gain was 0.044 (95% CI 0.03197–0.05923, p = 0.017) at 12 months. The 4-year discounted QALY gain was 0.176928. The estimated cost-utility ratio was R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis showed a range of R$25,690.29 ($10,714.28) to R$38,535.44 ($16,056.43) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of open lumbar discectomy to treat LDH is associated with a significant improvement in patient outcomes as measured by the SF-6D. Open lumbar discectomy performed in the Brazilian supplementary health care system provides a cost-utility ratio of R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY. The value of acceptable cost-effectiveness will vary by country and region.

Should General Practitioners Issue a Sick Certificate to Employees Who Consult for Low Back Pain in Primary Care?

PURPOSE

Back pain is a common problem and has significant societal impact. Sickness certification is commonly issued to patients consulting their general practitioner with low back pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of certification for low back pain with clinical outcomes and cost consequences.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study using linked questionnaire and medical record data from 806 low back pain patients in 8 UK general practices: comparison of 116 (14.4%) who received a sickness certificate versus 690 who did not receive certification. The primary clinical measure was the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Data on back pain consultation and work absenteeism were used to calculate healthcare and societal costs.

RESULTS

Participants issued a sickness certificate had higher back-related disability at baseline consultation and 6-month follow-up [mean difference 3.1 (95% CI 1.8, 4.4) on the RMDQ], indicating worse health status. After fully adjusting for baseline differences, most changes in clinical outcomes at 6 months were not significantly different between study groups. Productivity losses were significantly higher for the certification group, with most absence occurring after the expected end of certification; mean difference in costs due to absenteeism over 6 months was £1,956 (95% CI £941, £3040).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between individuals issued a sickness certificate and those not issued a certification for their back pain. With little overall contrast in clinical outcomes, policy makers and care providers may wish to draw on the likely difference in societal costs alongside issues in ethical and moral care in their consideration of patient care for low back pain.

Trial-based economic evaluations in occupational health: principles, methods, and recommendations

To allocate available resources as efficiently as possible, decision makers need information on the relative economic merits of occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions. Economic evaluations can provide this information by comparing the costs and consequences of alternatives. Nevertheless, only a few of the studies that consider the effectiveness of OHS interventions take the extra step of considering their resource implications. Moreover, the methodological quality of those that do is generally poor. Therefore, this study aims to help occupational health researchers conduct high-quality trial-based economic evaluations by discussing the theory and methodology that underlie them, and by providing recommendations for good practice regarding their design, analysis, and reporting. This study also helps consumers of this literature with understanding and critically appraising trial-based economic evaluations of OHS interventions.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome

A comprehensive economic analysis generally involves the calculation of indirect and direct health costs from a societal perspective as opposed to simply reporting costs from a hospital or payer perspective. Hospital charges for a surgical procedure must be converted to cost data when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. Once cost data has been calculated, quality-adjusted life year data from a surgical treatment are calculated by using a preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument such as the EQ-5D. A recent cost-utility analysis from a single study has demonstrated the long-term (over an 8-year time period) benefits of circumferential fusions over stand-alone posterolateral fusions. In addition, economic analysis from a single study has found that lumbar fusion for selected patients with low-back pain can be recommended from an economic perspective. Recent economic analysis, from a single study, finds that femoral ring allograft might be more cost-effective compared with a specific titanium cage when performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus posterolateral fusion.

A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Emerging literature suggests superior clinical short- and long-term outcomes of MIS (minimally invasive surgery) TLIFs (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) versus open fusions. Few studies to date have analyzed the cost differences between the two techniques and their relationship to acute clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine the differences in hospitalization costs and payments for patients treated with primary single-level MIS versus open TLIF. The impact of clinical outcomes and their contribution to financial differences was explored as well.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study was a nonrandomized, nonblinded prospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-six consecutive patients undergoing a single-level TLIF (open/MIS) were analyzed (33 open, 33 MIS). Patients in either cohort (MIS/open) were matched based on race, sex, age, smoking status, medical comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity index), payer, and diagnosis. Every patient in the study had a diagnosis of either degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis and stenosis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time (minutes), length of stay (LOS, days), estimated blood loss (EBL, mL), anesthesia time (minutes), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and hospital cost/payment amount were assessed.

METHODS

The MIS and open TLIF groups were compared based on clinical outcomes measures and hospital cost/payment data using SPSS version 20.0 for statistical analysis. The two groups were compared using bivariate chi-squared analysis. Mann-Whitney tests were used for non-normal distributed data. Effect size estimate was calculated with the Cohen d statistic and the r statistic with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Average surgical time was shorter for the MIS than the open TLIF group (115.8 minutes vs. 186.0 minutes respectively; p=.001). Length of stay was also reduced for the MIS versus the open group (2.3 days vs. 2.9 days, respectively; p=.018). Average anesthesia time and EBL were also lower in the MIS group (p<.001). VAS scores decreased for both groups, although these scores were significantly lower for the MIS group (p<.001). Financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital direct costs (blood, imaging, implant, laboratory, pharmacy, physical therapy/occupational therapy/speech, room and board) in the MIS versus the open group ($19,512 vs. $23,550, p<.001). Implant costs were similar (p=.686) in both groups, although these accounted for about two-thirds of the hospital direct costs in the MIS cohort ($13,764) and half of these costs ($13,778) in the open group. Hospital payments were $6,248 higher for open TLIF patients compared with the MIS group (p=.267).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS TLIF technique demonstrated significant reductions of operative time, LOS, anesthesia time, VAS scores, and EBL compared with the open technique. This reduction in perioperative parameters translated into lower total hospital costs over a 60-day perioperative period. Although hospital reimbursements appear higher in the open group over the MIS group, shorter surgical times and LOS days in the MIS technique provide opportunities for hospitals to reduce utilization of resources and to increase surgical case volume.

An Analysis of Methodologies That Can Be Used to Validate if a Perioperative Surgical Home Improves the Patient-centeredness, Evidence-based Practice, Quality, Safety, and Value of Patient Care

Approximately 80 million inpatient and outpatient surgeries are performed annually in the United States. Widely variable and fragmented perioperative care exposes these surgical patients to lapses in expected standard of care, increases the chance for operational mistakes and accidents, results in unnecessary and potentially detrimental care, needlessly drives up costs, and adversely affects the patient healthcare experience. The American Society of Anesthesiologists and other stakeholders have proposed a more comprehensive model of perioperative care, the Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH), to improve current care of surgical patients and to meet the future demands of increased volume, quality standards, and patient-centered care. To justify implementation of this new healthcare delivery model to surgical colleagues, administrators, and patients and maintain the integrity of evidenced-based practice, the nascent PSH model must be rigorously evaluated. This special article proposes comparative effectiveness research aims or objectives and an optimal study design for the novel PSH model.

Patient comorbidities and complications after spinal surgery: a societal-based cost analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patient comorbidities and perioperative complications after spinal surgery affect the health care costs to society.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite efforts to reduce adverse events related to spinal surgery, complications are common and significantly increased by patient comorbidities.

METHODS

Patients who underwent spinal surgery at a tertiary academic center during a 6-month period (May 2008 to December 2008) were prospectively followed. All demographic data, comorbidities, procedural information, and complications to 30-day follow-up were recorded. Diagnosis-Related Group codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes were captured for each patient. Direct costs were estimated from a societal perspective, using 2008 Medicare rates of reimbursement. A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the impact of specific patient comorbidities and complications on total health care costs.

RESULTS

A total of 226 cases were analyzed. The mean cost of care for cases with complications was greater than that for cases without complications ($13,518.35 [95% confidence interval (CI), $9378.80-$17,657.90]; P < 0.0001). These results were consistent across degenerative, traumatic, and tumor/infection preoperative diagnoses. Cases with major complications were more costly than those with minor complications ($13,714.88 [CI, $6353.02-$21,076.74]; P = 0.0001). Systemic malignancy and preoperative neurological comorbidity were each associated with an increase in the cost of care ($7919 [CI, $2073-$15,225]; P = 0.006] and $5508 [CI, $814-$11,198; P = 0.02]), respectively, when compared with a baseline cost of care derived from all cases in the database. The cost of care was increased by pulmonary complications ($7233 [CI, $3982.53-$11,152.88]; P < 0.0001), instrumentation malposition ($6968 [CI, $1705.90-$14,277.16]; P = 0.0062), new neurological deficit ($4537 [CI, $863.95-$9274.30]; P = 0.013), and by wound infection ($4067 [CI, $1682.79-$6872.39]; P = 0.0004), after adjustment for covariates.

CONCLUSION

Both minor and major complications were found to increase the cost of care in a prospective assessment of spine surgery complications. Specific patient comorbidities and perioperative complications are associated with significant increases in the total cost of care to society.

Implementation of a guideline for low back pain management in primary care: a cost-effectiveness analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To study the cost-effectiveness of 2 low back pain guideline implementation (GI) strategies.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Several evidence-based guidelines on management of low back pain have been published. However, there is still no consensus on the effective implementation strategy. Especially studies on the economic impact of different implementation strategies are lacking.

METHODS

This analysis was performed alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of 2 GI strategies (physician education alone [GI] or physician education in combination with motivational counseling [MC] by practice nurses)--both compared with the postal dissemination of the guideline (control group, C). Sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, and cost data were collected by interview at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. low back pain-related health care costs were valued for 2004 from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

For the cost analysis, 1322 patients from 126 general practices were included. Both interventions showed lower direct and indirect costs as well as better patient outcomes during follow-up compared with controls. In addition, both intervention arms showed superiority of cost-effectiveness to C. The effects attenuated when adjusting for differences of health care utilization prior to patient recruitment and for clustering of data.

CONCLUSION

Trends in cost-effectiveness are visible but need to be confirmed in future studies. Researchers performing cost-evaluation studies should test for baseline imbalances of health care utilization data instead of judging on the randomization success by reviewing non-cost parameters like clinical data alone.

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations

Purpose

Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors’ databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

Results

A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences.

Conclusion

At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

Performing a Cost Analysis in Spine Outcomes Research

BACKGROUND:

Medical cost analysis is increasingly important, but the methodology is complex and varied.

OBJECTIVE:

To illustrate how different cost analysis methodologies influence conclusions generated from data from a prospective nonrandomized trial for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

METHODS:

Patients 40 to 85 years of age with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy were enrolled from 7 sites over 2 years (2007–2009). Patients were treated with ventral or dorsal fusion surgery, and outcomes were measured to 1 year postoperatively. A hospital-based cost analysis was performed using Medicare cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) multiplied by hospital charges from the index hospitalization (CCR method). A society-based cost analysis was performed by estimating costs from the index hospitalization using Medicare coding reimbursement (the Medicare reimbursement method). A separate outpatient cost analysis was performed on a subset of 20 patients.

RESULTS:

Of the 85 patients analyzed, 72 had 1-year follow-up. The CCR method showed a difference in upfront direct costs between the dorsal and ventral approaches ($27 942 ± 14 220 vs $21 563 ± 8721; P = .02). Overall upfront direct costs with the Medicare reimbursement method were not different. With the CCR method, the ventral approach dominates an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis. With the Medicare reimbursement method, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ventral surgery is $34 533, the cost of 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year gained by using ventral instead of dorsal surgery. In the subanalysis, outpatient costs were less after ventral surgery than dorsal surgery ($1997 ± 1211 vs $4734 ± $2874; P = .006).

CONCLUSION:

The choice of cost methodology may substantially influence the final results of an economic study.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of tennis elbow: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial: the TATE trial (ISRCTN 87141084)

Background

Tennis elbow is a common and often extremely painful musculoskeletal condition, which has considerable impact on individuals as well as economic implications for healthcare utilization and absence from work. Many management strategies have been studied in clinical trials. Whilst corticosteroid injections offer short term pain relief, this treatment is unpleasant and is used with caution due to an associated high risk of pain recurrence in the long term. Systematic reviews conclude that there is no clear and effective treatment for symptoms of pain in the first 6 weeks of the condition. There is a clear need for an intervention that is acceptable to patients and provides them with effective short-term pain relief without increasing the risk of recurrence. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an inexpensive, non-invasive, non-pharmacological form of analgesia that is commonly used in the treatment of pain. TENS has very few contraindications and is simple to apply. It also benefits from being patient controlled, thereby promoting self-management. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, in terms of pain relief, and cost-effectiveness of a self-management package of treatment that includes TENS.

Methods/Design

The design of the study will be a two-group pragmatic randomized clinical trial. 240 participants aged 18 years and over with tennis elbow will be recruited from 20-30 GP practices in Staffordshire, UK. Participants are to be randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either primary care management (standard GP consultation, medication, advice and education) or primary care management with the addition of TENS, over 6 weeks. Our primary outcome measure is average intensity of elbow pain in the past 24 hours (0-10 point numerical rating scale) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain and limitation of function, global assessment of change, days of sick leave, illness perceptions, and overall health status. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. Patient adherence and satisfaction data will be collected at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire. A diary will also be completed for the first 2 weeks of treatment. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses will be carried out using an intention-to-treat approach as the primary analysis.

Discussion

This paper presents detail on the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials. ISRCTN87141084

Can cost utility evaluations inform decision making about interventions for low back pain?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) is associated with high health-care utilization and lost productivity. Numerous interventions are routinely used, although few are supported by strong evidence. Cost utility analyses (CUAs) may be helpful to inform decision makers.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of CUAs of interventions for LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A search strategy combining medical subject headings and free text related to LBP and health economic evaluations was executed in MEDLINE. Cost utility analyses combined with randomized controlled trials for LBP were included. Studies that were published before 1998, non-English, decision analyses, and duplicate reports were excluded. Search results were evaluated by two reviewers, who extracted data independently related to clinical study design, economic study design, direct cost components, utility results, cost results, and CUA results.

RESULTS

The search produced 319 citations, and of these 15 met eligibility criteria. Most were from the United Kingdom (n=8), published in the past 3 years (n=12), studied chronic LBP or radiculopathy (n=13), and had a follow-up >12 months (n=13). Combined, there were 33 study groups who received a mean 2.1 interventions, most commonly education (n=17), exercise therapy (n=13), spinal manipulation therapy (n=7), surgery (n=7), and usual care from a general practitioner (n=7). Mean baseline utility was 0.57, improving to 0.67 at follow-up; the mean difference in utility improvement between study groups was 0.04. Based on available data and converted to US dollars, the cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from $304 to 579,527 dollars, with a median of 13,015 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Few CUAs were identified for LBP, and there was heterogeneity in the interventions compared, direct cost components measured, indirect costs, other methods, and results. Reporting quality was mixed. Currently published CUAs do not provide sufficient information to assist decision makers. Future CUAs should attempt to measure all known direct cost components relevant to LBP, estimate indirect costs such as lost productivity, have a follow-up period sufficient to capture meaningful changes, and clearly report methods and results to facilitate interpretation and comparison.

The impact of economic evaluation on quality management in spine surgery

Health care expenditures are substantially increasing within the last two decades prompting the imperative need for economic evaluations in health care. Historically, economic evaluations in health care have been carried out by four approaches: (1) the human-capital approach (HCA), (2) cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), (3) cost-utility analysis (CUA) and (4) cost-benefit analysis (CBA). While the HCA cannot be recommended because of methodological shortcomings, CEA and CUA have been used frequently in healthcare. In CEA, costs are measured in monetary terms and health effects are measured in a non-monetary unit, e.g. number of successfully treated patients. In an attempt to develop an effectiveness measure that incorporates effects on both quantity and quality of life, so-called Quality Adjusted Life Years (QUALYs) were introduced. Contingent valuation surveys are used in cost-benefit analyses (CBA) to elicit the consumer's monetary valuations for program benefits by applying the willingness-to-pay approach. A distinguished feature of CBA is that costs and benefits are expressed in the same units of value, i.e. money. Only recently, economic evaluations have started to explore various spinal interventions particularly the very expensive fusion operations. While most of the studies used CEA or CUA approaches, CBAs are still rare. Most studies fail to show that sophisticated spinal interventions are more cost-effective than conventional treatments. In spite of the lack of therapeutic or cost-effectiveness for most spinal surgeries, there is rapidly growing spinal implant market demonstrating market imperfection and information asymmetry. A change can only be anticipated when physicians start to focus on the improvement of health care quality as documented by outcome research and economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness and net benefits.

Stay@Work: Participatory Ergonomics to prevent low back and neck pain among workers: design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness

Background

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are a major public health problem with considerable costs for individuals, companies and society. Therefore, prevention is imperative. The Stay@Work study investigates the (cost-)effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomics (PE) to prevent LBP and NP among workers.

Methods

In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 5,759 workers working at 36 departments of four companies is expected to participate in the study at baseline. The departments consisting of about 150 workers are pre-stratified and randomised. The control departments receive usual practice and the intervention departments receive PE. Within each intervention department a working group is formed including eight workers, a representative of the management, and an occupational health and safety coordinator. During a one day meeting, the working group follows the steps of PE in which the most important risk factors for LBP and NP, and the most adequate ergonomic measures are identified on the basis of group consensus. The implementation of ergonomic measures at the department is performed by the working group. To improve the implementation process, so-called 'ergocoaches' are trained.

The primary outcome measure is an episode of LBP and NP. Secondary outcome measures are actual use of ergonomic measures, physical workload, psychosocial workload, intensity of pain, general health status, sick leave, and work productivity. The cost-effectiveness analysis is performed from the societal and company perspective. Outcome measures are assessed using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Data on the primary outcome as well as on intensity of pain, sick leave, work productivity, and health care costs are collected every 3 months.

Discussion

Prevention of LBP and NP is beneficial for workers, employers, and society. If the intervention is proven (cost-)effective, the intervention can have a major impact on LBP and NP prevention and, thereby, on work disability prevention. Results are expected in 2010.

Trial registration

ISRCTN27472278

ISSLS prize winner: cost-effectiveness of two forms of circumferential lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Economic evaluation alongside a prospective, randomized controlled trial from a secondary care National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of titanium cages (TC) compared with femoral ring allografts (FRA) in circumferential lumbar spinal fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A randomized controlled trial has shown the use of TC to be clinically inferior to the established practice of using FRA in circumferential lumbar fusion. Health economic evaluation is urgently needed to justify the continued use of TC, given that this treatment is less effective and, all things being equal, is assumed more costly than FRA.

METHODS

Eighty-three patients were randomly allocated to receive either the TC or FRA as part of a circumferential lumbar fusion between 1998 and 2002. NHS costs related to the surgery and revision surgery needed during the trial period were monitored and adjusted to the base year (2005-2006 Pounds Sterling). The Short Form-6D (SF-6D) was administered before surgery and at 6, 12 and 24 months in order to elicit patient utility and subsequently Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for the trial period. Return to paid employment was also monitored. Bootstrapped mean differences in discounted costs and benefits were generated in order to explore cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A significant cost difference of pound 1950 (95% CI, pound 849 to pound 3145) in favor of FRA was found. Mean QALYs per patient over the 24-month trial period were 0.0522 (SD, 0.0326) in the TC group and 0.1914 (SD, 0.0398) in the FRA group, producing a significant difference of -0.1392 (95% CI, -0.2349 to -0.0436). With regard to employment, incremental productivity costs were estimated at pound 185,171 in favor of FRA.

CONCLUSION

From an NHS perspective, the trial data show that TC is not cost-effective in circumferential lumbar fusion. The use of FRA was both cheaper and generated greater QALY gains. In addition, FRA patients reported a greater return to work rate.

Cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for sciatica

STUDY DESIGN

An economic evaluation alongside a randomized clinical trial in primary care. A total of 135 patients were randomly allocated to physical therapy added to general practitioners' care (n = 67) or to general practitioners' care alone (n = 68).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for patients with an acute lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS, also called sciatica) compared with general practitioner care only.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a lack of knowledge concerning the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy in patients with sciatica.

METHODS

The clinical outcomes were global perceived effect and quality of life. The direct and indirect costs were measured by means of questionnaires. The follow-up period was 1 year. The Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between both study arms was constructed. Confidence intervals for the ICER were calculated using Fieller's method and using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference on perceived recovery at 1-year follow-up in favor of the physical therapy group. The additional physical therapy did not have an incremental effect on quality of life. At 1-year follow-up, the ICER for the total costs was 6224 euros (95% confidence interval, -10,419, 27,551) per improved patient gained. For direct costs only, the ICER was 837 euros (95% confidence interval, -731, 3186).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of patients with LRS with physical therapy and general practitioners'care is not more cost-effective than general practitioners'care alone.

Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Reoperation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Cost Effectiveness and Cost Utility Analysis Based on a Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE:

We analyzed the cost-effectiveness and cost–utility of treating failed back–surgery syndrome using spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus reoperation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A disinterested third party collected charge data for the first 42 patients in a randomized controlled crossover trial. We computed the difference in cost with regard to success (cost–effectiveness) and mean quality–adjusted life years (cost–utility). We analyzed the patient–charge data with respect to intention to treat (costs and outcomes as a randomized group), treated as intended (costs as randomized; crossover failure assigned to a randomized group), and final treatment costs and outcomes.

RESULTS:

By our mean 3.1–year follow–up, 13 of 21 patients (62%) crossed to reoperation versus 5 of 19 patients (26%) who crossed to SCS (P &lt; 0.025). The mean cost per success was US $117,901 for crossovers to SCS. No crossovers to reoperation achieved success despite a mean per-patient expenditure of US $260,584. The mean per-patient costs were US $31,530 for SCS versus US $38,160 for reoperation (intention to treat), US $48,357 for SCS versus US $105,928 for reoperation (treated as intended), and US $34,371 for SCS versus US $36,341 for reoperation (final treatment). SCS was dominant (more effective and less expensive) in the incremental cost–effectiveness ratios and incremental cost–utility ratios. A bootstrapped simulation for incremental costs and quality–adjusted life years confirmed SCS's dominance, with approximately 72% of the cost results occurring below US policymakers' “maximum willingness to pay” threshold.

CONCLUSION:

SCS was less expensive and more effective than reoperation in selected failed back–surgery syndrome patients, and should be the initial therapy of choice. SCS is most cost–effective when patients forego repeat operation. Should SCS fail, reoperation is unlikely to succeed.

The Application of Economic Evaluation Methods in the Chronic Pain Medicine Literature

BACKGROUND

The relative efficiency of a health care intervention or health status improvement realized for a given amount of resources expended can be determined using cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

An extensive chronic pain-focused search was undertaken of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCI-EXPANDED databases. A total of 1822 unique citations were generated, with 142 studies subsequently categorized as incorporating one of seven recognized types of health care economic evaluation.

RESULTS

Of the 142 identified chronic pain-related economic evaluations published between 1988 and 2006, 30 incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis and 29 incorporated a cost-utility analysis. The data are consistent with the previously reported chronological pattern of an increased overall diffusion of cost-utility analysis studies from the general medical and health services research literature into the medical subspecialty journals. However, only a few studies combined the economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial, the economic end-points in the trials had limited time horizons, and there was failure to address the protracted costs versus benefits of treating long-term and often recurrent chronic pain conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it would appear worthwhile for researchers and clinicians to consider cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis in their trial designs and treatment algorithms for chronic pain conditions, methodological improvements can be made in trial designs.

Methods for measuring personal costs associated with vision impairment

PURPOSE

To describe and evaluate the procedures used to collect personal costs associated with vision impairment using diaries.

METHODS

Participants with impaired vision (VA < 6/12 or > or = 6/12 with restricted visual fields) were recruited. Twelve-monthly diaries, provided in large print and electronic format (with audio and Braille instruction manuals and personal assistance), were used to record vision-related expenditures grouped under four categories. Two questionnaires were used to collect additional information and to test the validity of the self-reported costs.

RESULTS

Of 227 people who consented to participate, 66% (n = 150; 91 females; mean age = 64.8 years) completed > or = 3 monthly diaries. Of the 150 eligible participants, 68% completed the diaries over 12 months, indicating a relatively high completion rate. The median total cost was AUD 2,417 dollars per annum and median values for the four expenditure categories ranged between AUD 206 dollars and AUD 872 dollars per annum. The data were consistent across different months with no significant difference found between any monthly comparison (t-test; p > Bonferroni-adjusted value). Data at 1, 3, and 6 months, extrapolated to annual figures, showed no significant difference from annual total costs, indicating consistency in the data collection periods. A significant association was found between diary data and similar entries in the follow-up questionnaire, confirming the validity of the recorded expenditures (Spearman; p < 0.01). Participants commented that the diary method was useful to obtain personal costs.

CONCLUSION

A high response rate was achieved by using diaries and additional assistance methods. The diary provided an accurate and reliable strategy to determine the major personal costs associated with vision impairment.

A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: Results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration.

METHODS

A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM 142 pounds, PT 195 pounds). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was 2,362 pounds. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay 10,000 pound per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money.

CONCLUSION

PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considered.

Economic evaluation of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick-leave due to low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a return to work (RTW) program for workers on sick-leave due to low back pain (LBP), comparing a workplace intervention implemented between 2 to 8 weeks of sick-leave with usual care, and a clinical intervention after 8 weeks of sick-leave with usual care.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

STUDY POPULATION

Workers sick-listed for a period of 2 to 6 weeks due to LBP.

INTERVENTIONS

1. workplace assessment, work modifications and case management). 2. physiotherapy based on operant behavioural principles. 3. usual care: provided by an occupational physician.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was return to work (RTW). Other outcomes were pain intensity, functional status, quality of life and general health. The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (after 2-6 weeks on sick-leave), and 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks after the first day of sick-leave.

RESULTS

The workplace intervention group returned to work 30.0 days (95% CI=[3.1, 51.3]) earlier on average than the usual care group at slightly higher direct costs (ratio of 1 day: 19 euro). Workers in the clinical intervention group that had received usual care in the first 8 weeks returned to work 21.3 days (95% CI= [-74.1, 29.2]) later on average. The group that had received the workplace intervention in the first 8 weeks and the clinical intervention after 8 weeks returned to work 50.9 days (95% CI=[-89.4, -2.7]) later on average. A workplace intervention was more effective than usual care in RTW at slightly higher costs and was equally effective as usual care at equal costs on other outcomes. A clinical intervention was less effective than usual care and associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSION

The workplace intervention results in a safe and faster RTW than usual care at reasonable costs for workers on sick-leave for two to six weeks due to LBP.

Cost-effectiveness of surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression

PURPOSE

A recent randomized clinical trial has demonstrated that direct decompressive surgery plus radiotherapy was superior to radiotherapy alone for the treatment of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness of the two approaches.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the original clinical trial, clinical effectiveness was measured by ambulation and survival time until death. In this study, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. Costs related to treatment and posttreatment care were estimated and extended to the lifetime of the cohort. Weibull regression was applied to extrapolate outcomes in the presence of censored clinical effectiveness data.

RESULTS

From a societal perspective, the baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be $60 per additional day of ambulation (all costs in 2003 Canadian dollars). Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 50% of all generated ICERs were lower than $57, and 95% were lower than $242 per additional day of ambulation. This analysis had a 95% CI of -$72.74 to 309.44, meaning that this intervention ranged from a financial savings of $72.74 to a cost of $309.44 per additional day of ambulation. Using survival as the measure of effectiveness resulted in an ICER of $30,940 per life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

We found strong evidence that treatment of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression with surgery in addition to radiotherapy is cost-effective both in terms of cost per additional day of ambulation, and cost per life-year gained.

Cost-effectiveness of two self-care interventions to reduce disability associated with back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Two randomized, controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of psychologist-led and lay-led interventions in reducing disability in 2 cohorts of primary care patients with back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although activating self-care interventions have been advanced as effective tools to reduce back pain-related activity limitations, few studies have evaluated the added costs of these programs relative to their added benefits.

METHODS

We estimated the incremental benefits and incremental costs associated with 2 self-care interventions for primary care patients with back pain. Effectiveness was measured as the number of low-impact back pain days (i.e., days when patients were satisfied with their level of back pain) over a 1-year follow-up. Costs of back-pain related services were estimated from health plan cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each intervention to determine the costs associated with an additional low-impact back pain day.

RESULTS

Patients assigned to the lay and psychologist interventions had a mean of 14.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.7 to 30.9) and 26.2 (95% CI 9.1-44.4) additional low-impact back pain days, respectively, compared with patients receiving usual care. The incremental per-person costs of the lay-led and psychologist-led interventions were dollar 139 (95% CI - dollar 62.13 to dollar 321.76) and dollar 161 (95% CI dollar 51.18 to dollar 275.93), respectively. The mean cost of an additional low-impact back pain day was dollar 9.70 for the lay-led intervention and dollar 6.13 for the psychologist-led intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the lay and psychologist interventions were associated with modest improvements in outcomes but with somewhat higher costs compared to usual care.

What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review

Economic evaluations of the various interventions available for low back pain will help clinicians and policymakers to identify the most beneficial treatment. This chapter aims to evaluate the most cost-effective treatments for patients with non-specific low back pain. Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane library were used to search for articles published from 1966 to July 2004 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. The consensus health economic criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We found 17 studies; six of these concluded that the intervention of interest was superior to the control intervention. However, definite conclusions about the most cost-effective intervention could not be drawn because of the heterogeneity of interventions, controls and study populations. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed before such a conclusion can be made.

Using diaries to collect data in resource-poor settings: questions on design and implementation

Diaries, as a tool for data collection, have been around for some time. Lessons shared to date come from disparate settings and there remains a degree of ambiguity regarding the value of diaries, particularly in resource-poor settings where populations are often illiterate and highly mobile. We recently designed a pictorial diary for the collection of data on household consumption and expenditure in Tanzania and The Gambia. A random sample of 361 diary keepers in The Gambia and 308 in Tanzania maintained diaries for a period of 12 months. The aim of this paper is to share some of the lessons learnt in developing and applying this instrument. It is structured around a series of questions about diaries that we found relatively few answers to when we first embarked on this study. These questions include: how should a diary be designed? How long should a diary be maintained? When should entries be recorded? Who should keep the diary? The motive behind this paper is simple: to provide future researchers who are contemplating using diaries in resource-poor settings with some practical information that may guide them through this process.

Evidence-Based Medicine and the Challenge of Low Back Pain: Where Are We Now?

Low back pain has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists. Management of low back pain has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary, inappropriate, or ineffective. Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisals of the available literature. Evidence-based medicine, an approach to clinical problem solving, is predicated on the premise that high-quality health care will result from practices consistent with the best evidence. In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion, authority, and unsystematic clinical observations, evidence-based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisals of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making. Evidence-based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions. Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature, however, most clinicians are unable to keep up-to-date with all the new data. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Like primary studies, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high methodologic standards to reduce error and bias. As in other areas of medicine, the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings. In addition to more rigorous primary studies, an increasing number of high-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available. Although some research gaps and methodologic shortcomings persist, the richer evidence base has greatly improved our understanding of what does and does not work for low back pain. Despite these advances, the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence-based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care. This article reviews basic principles of evidence-based medicine, discusses evidence-based medicine in the context of low back pain management, and summarizes some useful evidence-based medicine resources.

Management of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: a systematic review of the literature

The management of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficits remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of operative and conservative treatment of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. PubMed was used to search for articles published from January 1992 to January 2003 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria were: (1) traumatic lumbar, thoracic or thoracolumbar fractures, (2) unstable fractures without neurological deficits, (3) a comparison between operative and conservative treatment, (4) at least ten patients were included in the study. Seventeen studies were identified; four prospective and 13 retrospective studies. Sample sizes in 15 studies were relatively small (18--100 patients); two studies had larger sample sizes. Comparison among different studies was difficult due to insufficient description of interventions, different outcome measures, and different length of follow-up periods. The current literature does not provide a reliable answer to whether operative or conservative treatment is more effective for unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. High quality randomised controlled trials are direly needed.