1
|
McKechnie T, Heimann L, Kazi T, Jessani G, Lee Y, Sne N, Hong D, Eskicioglu C. Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 2024; 28:39. [PMID: 38507105 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-02912-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Accepted: 02/18/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditional teaching has been to place patients in the left lateral decubitus starting position for colonoscopies. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared left lateral decubitus starting position to other approaches. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different starting positions for colonoscopies and their effect on cecal intubation. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing at least two different starting positions for adults undergoing colonoscopy. The main outcome was cecal intubation time. Meta-analysis used an inverse variance random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Tool for RCTs 2.0. RESULTS After screening 1523 citations, 14 RCTs were included. Four studies compared left lateral decubitus to right lateral decubitus, four studies compared left lateral decubitus to left lateral tilt-down, three studies compared left lateral decubitus to prone, and three studies compared left lateral decubitus to supine. There were no statistically significant differences in cecal intubation time in seconds across all comparisons: left lateral decubitus vs. right lateral decubitus (MD 14.9, 95% CI - 111.8 to 141.6, p = 0.82, I2 = 85%); left lateral decubitus vs. left lateral tilt-down (MD - 31.3, 95% CI - 70.8 to 8.3, p = 0.12, I2 = 82%); left lateral decubitus vs. prone (MD 17.2, 95% CI - 174.9 to 209.4, p = 0.86, I2 = 94%); left lateral decubitus vs. supine (MD - 149.9, 95% CI - 443.6 to 143.9, p = 0.32, I2 = 89%). CONCLUSION The starting position for colonoscopies likely does not influence cecal intubation time. This study was limited by heterogeneity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T McKechnie
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada
| | - L Heimann
- Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA
| | - T Kazi
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - G Jessani
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Y Lee
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada
| | - N Sne
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - D Hong
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - C Eskicioglu
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada.
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gega L, Jankovic D, Saramago P, Marshall D, Dawson S, Brabyn S, Nikolaidis GF, Melton H, Churchill R, Bojke L. Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-182. [PMID: 35048909 PMCID: PMC8958412 DOI: 10.3310/rcti6942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives. OBJECTIVES (1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions. METHODS We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders. RESULTS In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'. LIMITATIONS There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'. FUTURE WORK There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lina Gega
- Department of Health and Social Care Sciences, University of York, York, UK
- Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK
- Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Dina Jankovic
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - Pedro Saramago
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - David Marshall
- Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Sarah Dawson
- Common Mental Disorders Group, Cochrane Collaboration, University of York, York, UK
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sally Brabyn
- Department of Health and Social Care Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | | | - Hollie Melton
- Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Rachel Churchill
- Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
- Common Mental Disorders Group, Cochrane Collaboration, University of York, York, UK
| | - Laura Bojke
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tian J, Gao Y, Zhang J, Yang Z, Dong S, Zhang T, Sun F, Wu S, Wu J, Wang J, Yao L, Ge L, Li L, Shi C, Wang Q, Li J, Zhao Y, Xiao Y, Yang F, Fan J, Bao S, Song F. Progress and challenges of network meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med 2021; 14:218-231. [PMID: 34463038 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Revised: 08/03/2021] [Accepted: 08/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
In the past years, network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used among clinicians, guideline makers, and health technology assessment agencies and has played an important role in clinical decision-making and guideline development. To inform further development of NMAs, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the current status of published NMA methodological studies, summarized the methodological progress of seven types of NMAs, and discussed the current challenges of NMAs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinhui Tian
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Ya Gao
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Junhua Zhang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Zhirong Yang
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Shengjie Dong
- Orthopedic Department, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shandong, China
| | - Tiansong Zhang
- Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jing'an District Central Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Feng Sun
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Shanshan Wu
- National Clinical Research Center of Digestive Diseases, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jiarui Wu
- Department of Clinical Chinese Pharmacy, School of Chinese Materia Medica, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Junfeng Wang
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Liang Yao
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Long Ge
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
- Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Lun Li
- Department of Breast Cancer, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Quan Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jiang Li
- National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ye Zhao
- First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Yue Xiao
- China National Health Development Research Center, Beijing, China
| | - Fengwen Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Jinchun Fan
- Epidemiology and Evidence Based-Medicine, School of Public Health, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China
| | - Shisan Bao
- Epidemiology and Evidence Based-Medicine, School of Public Health, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China
- Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Fujian Song
- Public Health and Health Services Research, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Birch S, Bovey M, Robinson N. Acupuncture for chronic primary pain – are UK guidelines now consistent with other countries? Eur J Integr Med 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eujim.2020.101257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
5
|
Cope S, Toor K, Popoff E, Fonseca R, Landgren O, Mateos MV, Weisel K, Jansen JP. Critical Appraisal of Published Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses of Competing Interventions for Multiple Myeloma. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 23:441-450. [PMID: 32327161 PMCID: PMC7480667 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2018] [Revised: 09/11/2019] [Accepted: 11/16/2019] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM. METHODS Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts. RESULTS The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance. CONCLUSION Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon Cope
- Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kabirraaj Toor
- Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| | - Evan Popoff
- Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Rafael Fonseca
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Ola Landgren
- Myeloma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - María-Victoria Mateos
- University Hospital of Salamanca-Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
| | - Katja Weisel
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Birch S, Lee MS, Alraek T, Kim TH. Overview of Treatment Guidelines and Clinical Practical Guidelines That Recommend the Use of Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis. J Altern Complement Med 2018; 24:752-769. [PMID: 29912569 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2018.0092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As positive evidence emerges for the use of an intervention to treat a health problem, the intervention gradually becomes incorporated into treatment guidelines (TGs) or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that are related to that health problem. To assess whether this general hypothesis can apply to acupuncture, 96 health problems were identified for which positive conclusions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture have been made and then searched for TGs or CPGs that have recommended the use of acupuncture. METHODS Through August 31, 2017, searches were performed in relevant medical databases and Google using "treatment guideline," "clinical practice guideline," and the names of the 96 medical conditions as search terms. A "snow-balling" search approach was adopted. All positive recommendations were added into the registry. RESULTS A total of 1311 publications were found that recommended using acupuncture published between 1991 and 2017. The number per year reached 50 in 2005 and 100 in 2009. In addition, 2189 positive recommendations were found for the use of acupuncture. Of these, 1486 were related to 107 pain indications and 703 were related to 97 nonpain indications. These recommendations were made by a wide range of groups, such as government health institutions, national guideline, and medical specialty groups. The recommendations came from around the world but were especially abundant in North America, Europe, and Australasia. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Considerably more recommendations were found for the use of acupuncture than are known within the acupuncture or medical communities. A trend by year was also found; a rise in the number of positive statements about acupuncture was typically followed by a rise in the number of recommendations of acupuncture. Thus, the recommendations followed the emergent evidence for acupuncture. Better implementation plans need to be developed for the CPG/TG recommendations about acupuncture to be more effective/efficient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Birch
- 1 Department of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College , Oslo, Norway
| | - Myeong Soo Lee
- 2 Clinical Medicine Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine , Daejeon, Republic of South Korea
| | - Terje Alraek
- 1 Department of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College , Oslo, Norway .,3 Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National Research Centre in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway , Tromso, Norway
| | - Tae-Hun Kim
- 4 Korean Medicine Clinical Trial Center, Korean Medicine Hospital, Kyung Hee University , Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Acupuncture is now recommended for several chronic pain conditions. Despite supportive evidence of its effectiveness, this ancient approach is often misunderstood, and may still be underused in mainstream practice. A critical review on its effectiveness and practice integration, and mechanisms of action is essential to the medical community that is continuing to seek nonopioid therapies for chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS Mounting evidence supports the effectiveness of acupuncture to treat chronic low back, neck, shoulder, and knee pain, as well as headaches. Additional data are emerging that support the use of acupuncture as an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings. Findings related to its mechanisms of action include transient receptor potential cation channel vanilloid 1 activation in the periphery, microglial suppression in the cerebral cortex and spinal cord, and regulation of cytokines and other key inflammatory factors in the spinal cord. Incremental integration of acupuncture into pain medicine practices and training programmes continues to grow. SUMMARY Acupuncture is effective, safe, and cost-effective for treating several chronic pain conditions when performed by well-trained healthcare professionals. Further studies on its use as an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings are needed.
Collapse
|
8
|
Riley RD, Jackson D, Salanti G, Burke DL, Price M, Kirkham J, White IR. Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples. BMJ 2017; 358:j3932. [PMID: 28903924 PMCID: PMC5596393 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 155] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence require the synthesis of evidence from existing studies to inform their decisions—for example, about the best available treatments with respect to multiple efficacy and safety outcomes. However, relevant studies may not provide direct evidence about all the treatments or outcomes of interest. Multivariate and network meta-analysis methods provide a framework to address this, using correlated or indirect evidence from such studies alongside any direct evidence. In this article, the authors describe the key concepts and assumptions of these methods, outline how correlated and indirect evidence arises, and illustrate the contribution of such evidence in real clinical examples involving multiple outcomes and multiple treatments
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | | | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland
- University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Danielle L Burke
- Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Malcolm Price
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Jamie Kirkham
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Ian R White
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Woods B, Manca A, Weatherly H, Saramago P, Sideris E, Giannopoulou C, Rice S, Corbett M, Vickers A, Bowes M, MacPherson H, Sculpher M. Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0172749. [PMID: 28267751 PMCID: PMC5340388 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172749] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2016] [Accepted: 02/02/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value. METHODS Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16). RESULTS When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beth Woods
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Andrea Manca
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Helen Weatherly
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Pedro Saramago
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Stephen Rice
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Corbett
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Matthew Bowes
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom
| | - Hugh MacPherson
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Sculpher
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|