Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care [with consumer summary]
Wonderling D, Vickers AJ, Grieve R, McCarney R
BMJ 2004 Mar 27;328(7442):747-751
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chronic headache. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months from appropriately trained physiotherapists, or to usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Total costs during the one year period of the study were on average higher for the acupuncture group (Great British Pounds 403; $768; Euro 598) than for controls (Great British Pounds 217) because of the acupuncture practitioners' costs. The mean health gain from acupuncture during the one year of the trial was 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to a base case estimate of Great British Pounds 9,180 per QALY gained. This result was robust to sensitivity analysis. Cost per QALY dropped substantially when the analysis incorporated likely QALY differences for the years after the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture for chronic headache improves health related quality of life at a small additional cost; it is relatively cost effective compared with a number of other interventions provided by the NHS.
Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help