scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Pain Management Services for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Published Studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saja Almazrou ◽  
Rachel A Elliott ◽  
Roger D Knaggs ◽  
Shiekha S AlAujan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Management Services

Abstract Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. Results: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. Conclusion Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Pain Management Services for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Published Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saja Almazrou ◽  
Rachel A Elliott ◽  
Roger D Knaggs ◽  
Shiekha S AlAujan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Management Services

Abstract Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. Results: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. Conclusion Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Pain Management Services for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Published Studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saja Almazrou ◽  
Rachel A Elliott ◽  
Roger D Knaggs ◽  
Shiekha S AlAujan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Management Services

Abstract Background To summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. Results Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types? of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. Conclusion Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the variability of the interventions, comparators and outcomes.

scholarly journals Isokinetic Trunk Strength in Acute Low Back Pain Patients Compared to Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2576
Author(s):  
Waleska Reyes-Ferrada ◽  
Luis Chirosa-Rios ◽  
Angela Rodriguez-Perea ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga ◽  
Ignacio Chirosa-Rios
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Isokinetic Strength ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Trunk Strength

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to: (I) determine the quality of evidence from studies assessing trunk isokinetic strength in subjects with acute low back pain (ALBP) compared to healthy subjects and (II) establish reference values of isokinetic trunk strength in subjects with ALBP. Methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements were followed using keywords associated with trunk, strength and low back pain. Four databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: A total of 1604 articles were retrieved, four included in this review. All were evaluated as high risk of bias (Rob). Due to the high Rob and the diversity of protocols, instruments and variables used, it was not possible to determine reference values for subjects with ALBP, we can only establish a range of flexion peak torque (PT) between 175.1 and 89.7 Nm at 60°/s and between 185 and 81.5 Nm at 120°/s, and for extension PT between 240.0 and 91.5 Nm at 60°/s and between 217.5 and 69.2 Nm at 120°/s in subjects with ALBP. Conclusions: Due to the low quality of the evidence and the diversity of protocols used when measuring trunk isokinetic strength, it is necessary to carry out new high-quality research to establish reference values of trunk strength in subjects with ALBP.

The importance and impact of patients' health literacy on low back pain management: a systematic review of literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Edward ◽  
Leah Yacat Carreon ◽  
Mark V. Williams ◽  
Steven Glassman ◽  
Jing Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Back Pain Management

scholarly journals Chiropractic maintenance care - what’s new? A systematic review of the literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iben Axén ◽  
Lise Hestbaek ◽  
Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chiropractic Care ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Maintenance Care

Abstract Background Maintenance Care is a traditional chiropractic approach, whereby patients continue treatment after optimum benefit is reached. A review conducted in 1996 concluded that evidence behind this therapeutic strategy was lacking, and a second review from 2008 reached the same conclusion. Since then, a systematic research program in the Nordic countries was undertaken to uncover the definition, indications, prevalence of use and beliefs regarding Maintenance Care to make it possible to investigate its clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness. As a result, an evidence-based clinical study could be performed. It was therefore timely to review the evidence. Method Using the search terms “chiropractic OR manual therapy” AND “Maintenance Care OR prevention”, PubMed and Web of Science were searched, and the titles and abstracts reviewed for eligibility, starting from 2007. In addition, a search for “The Nordic Maintenance Care Program” was conducted. Because of the diversity of topics and study designs, a systematic review with narrative reporting was undertaken. Results Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary/tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor ‘when needed’. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care. Conclusion Knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document