Literature DB >> 26631759

Which interventions are cost-effective for the management of whiplash-associated and neck pain-associated disorders? A systematic review of the health economic literature by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

Gabrielle van der Velde1, Hainan Yu2, Mike Paulden3, Pierre Côté4, Sharanya Varatharajan2, Heather M Shearer2, Jessica J Wong2, Kristi Randhawa5, Danielle Southerst6, Silvano Mior7, Deborah Sutton2, Craig Jacobs8, Anne Taylor-Vaisey9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) are prevalent conditions that impact society and impose a significant economic burden on health-care systems. Health economic evidence on WAD and NAD interventions has been sparse: only three economic evaluations of interventions for NAD were identified by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (NPTF). An updated overview is needed to inform health-care policy and guidelines.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of interventions for grades I-III WAD and NAD in children and adults. STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review of health economic literature, best-evidence synthesis.
METHODS: We systematically searched CINAHL, the Cochrane economic databases (Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), EconLit, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Tufts CEA Registry from 2000 to 2015 for economic evaluations of WAD and NAD interventions. We appraised relevant evaluations using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Criteria for Economic Evaluations. We extracted data, including mean costs (standardized to 2013 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), from studies with adequate methodological quality. We recalculated cost-effectiveness statistics based on the standardized currency using a willingness-to-pay of CAD $50,000 per additional QALY. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance.
RESULTS: Our search identified 1,616 citations. Six studies fulfilled our selection criteria, including three studies previously reviewed by the NPTF. Structured education appears cost-effective for adults with WAD. For adults with NAD, acupuncture added to routine medical care; manual therapy; multimodal care that includes manual therapy; advice and exercise; and psychological care using cognitive-behavioral therapy appear cost-effective. In contrast, adding manual therapy or diathermy to advice and exercise; multimodal care by a physiotherapist or physician; and behavioral-graded activity do not appear cost-effective for adults with NAD.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds to the findings of the NPTF. Recent evidence suggests that structured education is cost-effective for WAD, whereas advice and exercise and multimodal care that include manual therapy are cost-effective for NAD. Obtaining more robust health economic evidence for non-invasive interventions for WAD and NAD in children and adults remains an essential research priority. Copyright Â
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Intervention; Neck pain; Systematic review; Whiplash

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26631759     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.025

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


  8 in total

1.  Effectiveness of a "Spring Pillow" Versus Education in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Carla Vanti; Federico Banchelli; Claudia Marino; Andrea Puccetti; Andrew A Guccione; Paolo Pillastrini
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-09-01

Review 2.  Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

Authors:  Pierre Côté; Jessica J Wong; Deborah Sutton; Heather M Shearer; Silvano Mior; Kristi Randhawa; Arthur Ameis; Linda J Carroll; Margareta Nordin; Hainan Yu; Gail M Lindsay; Danielle Southerst; Sharanya Varatharajan; Craig Jacobs; Maja Stupar; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Gabrielle van der Velde; Douglas P Gross; Robert J Brison; Mike Paulden; Carlo Ammendolia; J David Cassidy; Patrick Loisel; Shawn Marshall; Richard N Bohay; John Stapleton; Michel Lacerte; Murray Krahn; Roger Salhany
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  A Review of the Clinical Utility of Therapeutic Facet Joint Injections in Whiplash Associated Cervical Spinal Pain.

Authors:  Kelechi Eseonu; Jaykar Panchmatia; David Pang; Bahram Fakouri
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-14

4.  Cost-effectiveness of neck-specific exercise with or without a behavioral approach versus physical activity prescription in the treatment of chronic whiplash-associated disorders: Analyses of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Maria Landén Ludvigsson; Anneli Peolsson; Gunnel Peterson; Åsa Dedering; Gun Johansson; Lars Bernfort
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Development of the circumduction metric for identification of cervical motion impairment.

Authors:  Yue Zhou; Eldon Loh; James P Dickey; David M Walton; Ana Luisa Trejos
Journal:  J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng       Date:  2018-07-25

6.  Acupuncture for chronic neck pain: a protocol for an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Qinhong Zhang; Jinhuan Yue; Xiangxin Zeng; Zhongren Sun; Brenda Golianu
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-04

7.  Shi's Daoyin Therapy for Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Huihao Wang; Enyu Jiang; Kuan Wang; Zhen Deng; Hongsheng Zhan; Zhibi Shen; Wenxin Niu
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 2.629

8.  External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain.

Authors:  Roel W Wingbermühle; Martijn W Heymans; Emiel van Trijffel; Alessandro Chiarotto; Bart Koes; Arianne P Verhagen
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.377

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.