Literature DB >> 12394910

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain.

Paul Miller1, Denise Kendrick, Elaine Bentley, Katherine Fielding.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Fifty-two practices in the East Midlands, United Kingdom, were included.
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that referral for lumbar spine radiography is cost-effective in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks' duration compared with usual care in which referral is not routine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar spine radiography is commonly used in the management of low back pain, although the yield of findings that alter clinical management is low. Evidence is needed on the cost-effectiveness of lumbar spine radiographs in patients with low back pain.
METHODS: A prospective economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial was used. Outcomes included the Roland disability score, pain, health status scale, EuroQol, satisfaction, direct health care costs (primary, secondary, and community care; prescribed and over-the-counter medicines; special equipment), and indirect costs (informal care, extra expenses, welfare benefits, loss of earnings and productivity). RESULTS A total of 210 participants were randomly assigned to lumbar spine radiography, and 211, to usual care. At 9 months' postrandomization, no difference between the groups was found in any health outcomes other than satisfaction. The intervention group had a higher overall satisfaction score (21 19, < 0.01). The intervention group had higher direct costs (150 pounds sterling vs 109 pounds sterling, < 0.01). Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that patient satisfaction can be increased using lumbar radiography but at an additional cost (point estimate 20 pounds sterling per point on satisfaction scale). The simulated distribution based on trial data shows that only when a 1-point increase in satisfaction is valued at more than 50 pounds sterling can it be claimed that radiography is cost-effective in these terms (incremental net monetary benefit mean = 116 pounds sterling, 95% CI pound 7, 225 pounds sterling).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiography is likely to be cost-effective only when satisfaction is valued relatively highly. Strategies to enhance satisfaction for patients with low back pain without using lumbar radiography should be pursued.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12394910     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200210150-00021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  14 in total

Review 1.  [Feasibilities and bounds of diagnostic radiology in case of back pain].

Authors:  W Pennekamp; G Rduch; V Nicolas
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 2.  [Imaging in rheumatology. Degenerative diseases of the spine].

Authors:  J Steinhagen; C R Habermann; J P Petersen; R Kothe; W Rüther
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.372

3.  Ionizing radiation exposure--more good than harm? The preponderance of evidence does not support abandoning current standards and regulations.

Authors:  André E Bussières; Carlo Ammendolia; Cindy Peterson; John A M Taylor
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2006-06

4.  Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work.

Authors:  G P G Lemmers; W van Lankveld; G P Westert; P J van der Wees; J B Staal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Cervical spine radiographs in patients with vertigo and dizziness.

Authors:  Carmen Bécares-Martínez; Aurora López-Llames; Alberto Martín-Pagán; Antonio Enrique Cores-Prieto; Marta Arroyo-Domingo; Jaime Marco-Algarra; María Morales-Suárez-Varela
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 6.  Content and outcome of usual primary care for back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Simon Somerville; Elaine Hay; Martyn Lewis; Julie Barber; Danielle van der Windt; Jonathan Hill; Gail Sowden
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Radiology and primary care in Europe.

Authors: 
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2010-06-11

8.  The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Authors:  Majid Artus; Danielle van der Windt; Kelvin P Jordan; Peter R Croft
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  A meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Xue-Qiang Wang; Jie-Jiao Zheng; Zhuo-Wei Yu; Xia Bi; Shu-Jie Lou; Jing Liu; Bin Cai; Ying-Hui Hua; Mark Wu; Mao-Ling Wei; Hai-Min Shen; Yi Chen; Yu-Jian Pan; Guo-Hui Xu; Pei-Jie Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Pain education to prevent chronic low back pain: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Adrian C Traeger; G Lorimer Moseley; Markus Hübscher; Hopin Lee; Ian W Skinner; Michael K Nicholas; Nicholas Henschke; Kathryn M Refshauge; Fiona M Blyth; Chris J Main; Julia M Hush; Garry Pearce; James H McAuley
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.