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 of lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain
Miller P, Kendrick D, Bentley E, Fielding K
Spine 2002 Oct 15;27(20):2291-2297
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; 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*

STUDY DESIGN: Fifty-two practices in the East Midlands, United Kingdom, were included. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that referral for lumbar spine radiography is cost-effective in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks' duration compared with usual care in which referral is not routine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar spine radiography is commonly used in the management of low back pain, although the yield of findings that alter clinical management is low. Evidence is needed on the cost-effectiveness of lumbar spine radiographs in patients with low back pain. METHODS: A prospective economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial was used. Outcomes included the Roland disability score, pain, health status scale, EuroQol, satisfaction, direct health care costs (primary, secondary, and community care; prescribed and over-the-counter medicines; special equipment), and indirect costs (informal care, extra expenses, welfare benefits, loss of earnings and productivity). RESULTS A total of 210 participants were randomly assigned to lumbar spine radiography, and 211, to usual care. At 9 months' postrandomization, no difference between the groups was found in any health outcomes other than satisfaction. The intervention group had a higher overall satisfaction score (21 versus 19, p < 0.01). The intervention group had higher direct costs (Great British Pounds 150 versus Great British Pounds 109, p < 0.01). Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that patient satisfaction can be increased using lumbar radiography but at an additional cost (point estimate Great British Pounds 20 per point on satisfaction scale). The simulated distribution based on trial data shows that only when a 1-point increase in satisfaction is valued at more than Great British Pounds 50 can it be claimed that radiography is cost-effective in these terms (incremental net monetary benefit mean Great British Pounds 116, 95% CI 7 to 225). CONCLUSIONS: Radiography is likely to be cost-effective only when satisfaction is valued relatively highly. Strategies to enhance satisfaction for patients with low back pain without using lumbar radiography should be pursued.
For more information on this journal, please visit http://www.lww.com.

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