We report the results of a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy and spa therapy (ST) versus usual care (control) for chronic neck pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age 18 to 80 years with pain in the neck area of more than 3 months' duration and no contraindications for PEMF therapy and ST. Randomization to the ST (n = 25) and PEMF groups (n = 26) was blinded, as was collection of data. Non-included subjects (n = 29) underwent usual care. The trial respected the Helsinki declaration, and informed consent was obtained from subjects. The analysis was intent to treat; the main outcome measure was increase in health dimension scores on the MOS SF-36 in terms of increase in French health care costs from 6 months preceding to 6 months after the start of the study. RESULTS: The increase in health care costs was less for the PEMF group (+68 Euro +/- 539; 95% confidence interval (CI) -145.0 to +281) than the ST and control groups. The increase tended to be less, but not significantly, for the ST group (+373 Euro +/- 938 (95% CI -14.0 to +76.0)) than for controls (+618 Euro +/- 2,715 (95% CI -434.0 to +167.0)). The gain of one physical MOS SF-36 unit during one year cost Euro 3,400 (95% CI -6,759 to +13,100) for the PEMF group, Euro 29,000 (95% CI -1,093 to +59,375) for the ST group and Euro 95,076 (95% CI -66,769 to +256,923) for the control group, but the differences were not significant. COMMENTARY: These results suggest a potential cost-effectiveness for ST and particularly PEMF as compared to usual care in chronic cervical pain. Our results perhaps lack significance probably because of lack of statistical power and do not distinguish costs related or not to chronic cervical pain.

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

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher