Literature DB >> 18164449

A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally.

Simon Dagenais1, Jaime Caro, Scott Haldeman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The economic burden of low back pain (LBP) is very large and appears to be growing. It is not possible to impact this burden without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the research on which these costs are calculated.
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of LBP cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Systematic review of the literature.
METHODS: Medline was searched to uncover studies about the direct or indirect costs of LBP published in English from 1997 to 2007. Data extracted for each eligible study included study design, population, definition of LBP, methods of estimating costs, year of data, and estimates of direct, indirect, or total costs. Results were synthesized descriptively.
RESULTS: The search yielded 147 studies, of which 21 were deemed relevant; 4 other studies and 2 additional abstracts were found by searching reference lists, bringing the total to 27 relevant studies. The studies reported on data from Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. Nine studies estimated direct costs only, nine indirect costs only, and nine both direct and indirect costs, from a societal (n=18) or private insurer (n=9) perspective. Methodology used to derive both direct and indirect cost estimates differed markedly among the studies. Among studies providing a breakdown on direct costs, the largest proportion of direct medical costs for LBP was spent on physical therapy (17%) and inpatient services (17%), followed by pharmacy (13%) and primary care (13%). Among studies providing estimates of total costs, indirect costs resulting from lost work productivity represented a majority of overall costs associated with LBP. Three studies reported that estimates with the friction period approach were 56% lower than with the human capital approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Several studies have attempted to estimate the direct, indirect, or total costs associated with LBP in various countries using heterogeneous methodology. Estimates of the economic costs in different countries vary greatly depending on study methodology but by any standards must be considered a substantial burden on society. This review did not identify any studies estimating the total costs of LBP in the United States from a societal perspective. Such studies may be helpful in determining appropriate allocation of health-care resources devoted to this condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18164449     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  538 in total

Review 1.  Trends over time in the size and quality of randomised controlled trials of interventions for chronic low-back pain.

Authors:  Nicholas Henschke; Ton Kuijpers; Sidney M Rubinstein; Marienke van Middelkoop; Raymond Ostelo; Arianne Verhagen; Bart W Koes; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Low back pain: the time to become invested in clinical practice guidelines is now.

Authors:  Rob A B Oostendorp; Peter A Huijbregts
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 1.037

3.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain.

Authors:  Andrea D Furlan; Fatemeh Yazdi; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Anita Gross; Maurits Van Tulder; Lina Santaguida; Joel Gagnier; Carlo Ammendolia; Trish Dryden; Steve Doucette; Becky Skidmore; Raymond Daniel; Thomas Ostermann; Sophia Tsouros
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.629

4.  Balneotherapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled study.

Authors:  Nur Kesiktas; Sinem Karakas; Kerem Gun; Nuran Gun; Sadiye Murat; Murat Uludag
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 2.631

Review 5.  [Identification of occupational risks associated with diseases suspected to be of possible occupational origin seen in the National Health System].

Authors:  Jordi Delclòs; María Alarcón; Anna Casanovas; Consol Serra; Rosa Fernández; Josep Lluís de Peray; Fernando G Benavides
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 1.137

Review 6.  Intervertebral disc, sensory nerves and neurotrophins: who is who in discogenic pain?

Authors:  José García-Cosamalón; Miguel E del Valle; Marta G Calavia; Olivia García-Suárez; Alfonso López-Muñiz; Jesús Otero; José A Vega
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 7.  Spinal cord stimulation programming: a crash course.

Authors:  Breanna Sheldon; Michael D Staudt; Lucian Williams; Tessa A Harland; Julie G Pilitsis
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.042

8.  Musculoskeletal sensitization and sleep: chronic muscle pain fragments sleep of mice without altering its duration.

Authors:  Blair C Sutton; Mark R Opp
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 5.849

9.  The enduring impact of what clinicians say to people with low back pain.

Authors:  Ben Darlow; Anthony Dowell; G David Baxter; Fiona Mathieson; Meredith Perry; Sarah Dean
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Age-related reduction in the expression of FOXO transcription factors and correlations with intervertebral disc degeneration.

Authors:  Oscar Alvarez-Garcia; Tokio Matsuzaki; Merissa Olmer; Koichi Masuda; Martin K Lotz
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.494

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.