What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review.

N. van der Roer; M.E.J.B. Goossens; S.M.A.A. Evers; M.W. van Tulder

doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007

What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review.

N. van der Roer^*, M.E.J.B. Goossens, S.M.A.A. Evers, M.W. van Tulder

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Economic evaluations of the various interventions available for low back pain will help clinicians and policynnakers to identify the most beneficial treatment. This chapter aims to evaluate the most cost-effective treatments for patients with non-specific low back pain. Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane library were used to search for articles published from 1966 to July 2004 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. The consensus health economic criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We found 17 studies; six of these concluded that the intervention of interest was superior to the control intervention. However, definite conclusions about the most cost-effective intervention could not be drawn because of the heterogeneity of interventions, controls and study populations. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed before such a conclusion can be made.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	671-684
Journal	Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology
Volume	19
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2005

Access to Document

10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007

Cite this

@article{633ea463cfd34a8e9fc6e8bd6b1b7e08,

title = "What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review.",

abstract = "Economic evaluations of the various interventions available for low back pain will help clinicians and policynnakers to identify the most beneficial treatment. This chapter aims to evaluate the most cost-effective treatments for patients with non-specific low back pain. Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane library were used to search for articles published from 1966 to July 2004 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. The consensus health economic criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We found 17 studies; six of these concluded that the intervention of interest was superior to the control intervention. However, definite conclusions about the most cost-effective intervention could not be drawn because of the heterogeneity of interventions, controls and study populations. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed before such a conclusion can be made.",

author = "{van der Roer}, N. and M.E.J.B. Goossens and S.M.A.A. Evers and {van Tulder}, M.W.",

year = "2005",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "671--684",

journal = "Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology",

issn = "1521-6942",

publisher = "ELSEVIER SCI LTD",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review.

AU - van der Roer, N.

AU - Goossens, M.E.J.B.

AU - Evers, S.M.A.A.

AU - van Tulder, M.W.

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - Economic evaluations of the various interventions available for low back pain will help clinicians and policynnakers to identify the most beneficial treatment. This chapter aims to evaluate the most cost-effective treatments for patients with non-specific low back pain. Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane library were used to search for articles published from 1966 to July 2004 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. The consensus health economic criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We found 17 studies; six of these concluded that the intervention of interest was superior to the control intervention. However, definite conclusions about the most cost-effective intervention could not be drawn because of the heterogeneity of interventions, controls and study populations. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed before such a conclusion can be made.

AB - Economic evaluations of the various interventions available for low back pain will help clinicians and policynnakers to identify the most beneficial treatment. This chapter aims to evaluate the most cost-effective treatments for patients with non-specific low back pain. Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane library were used to search for articles published from 1966 to July 2004 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. The consensus health economic criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We found 17 studies; six of these concluded that the intervention of interest was superior to the control intervention. However, definite conclusions about the most cost-effective intervention could not be drawn because of the heterogeneity of interventions, controls and study populations. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed before such a conclusion can be made.

U2 - 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007

DO - 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007

M3 - Article

SN - 1521-6942

VL - 19

SP - 671

EP - 684

JO - Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology

JF - Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology

IS - 4

ER -