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

Detailed Search Results

Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis
Indrakanti SS, Weber MH, Takemoto SK, Hu SS, Polly D, Berven SH
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2012 Apr;470(4):1106-1123
systematic review

BACKGROUND: Spinal disorders are a major cause of disability and compromise in health-related quality of life. The direct and indirect costs of treating spinal disorders are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. With limited resources, the cost-utility of interventions is important for allocating resources. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature on cost-utility for nonoperative and operative interventions for treating spinal disorders. METHODS: We searched four databases for cost-utility analysis studies on low back pain management and identified 1004 items. The titles and abstracts of 752 were screened before selecting 27 studies for inclusion; full texts of these 27 studies were individually evaluated by five individuals. RESULTS: Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care. Circumferential fusion and femoral ring allograft had greater value than posterolateral fusion and titanium cage, respectively. The relative cost-utility of operative versus nonoperative interventions was variable with the most consistent evidence indicating superior value of operative care for treating spinal disorders involving nerve compression and instability. CONCLUSION: The literature on cost-utility for treating spinal disorders is limited. Studies addressing cost-utility of nonoperative and operative management of low back pain encompass a broad spectrum of diagnoses and direct comparison of treatments based on cost-utility thresholds for comparative effectiveness is limited by diversity among disorders and methods to assess cost-utility. Future research will benefit from uniform methods and comparison of treatments in cohorts with well-defined pathology.
For more information on this journal, please visit http://www.lww.com.

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