We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant physical or occupational therapy for patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999 September
OBJECTIVE: To study from a societal viewpoint the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment for patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) of one upper extremity.
DESIGN: A two-center randomized clinical trial comparing pairwise physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and control treatment (CT).
PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-five patients with RSD for less than 1 year participated.
INTERVENTIONS: PT and OT were given according to protocols. For CT, services by social workers were offered.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Impairment-level Sum Score (ISS), the modified Greentest, and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) were used to determine effectiveness. Real medical costs, nonmedical costs, and productivity costs were distinguished and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost estimates.
RESULTS: The ISS, but not the Greentest and SIP, showed a significant difference between PT versus OT and CT. The mean adjuvant treatment costs were significantly higher for PT (Netherlands Guilders [NLG] 1,726) and OT (NLG 2,089) compared with CT (NLG 903). The mean total medical costs were not significantly different for the groups (PT, NLG 8,692; OT, NLG 13,023; and CT, NLG 7,888) (intention-to-treat analysis). The sensitivity analyses showed a moderate influence of the cost estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: PT results in clinically relevant improvement in RSD. Costs associated with adjuvant treatment are moderate compared to other medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of PT versus OT and CT were moderate or even dominant, thus PT was both more effective and less costly than its comparators.
DESIGN: A two-center randomized clinical trial comparing pairwise physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and control treatment (CT).
PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-five patients with RSD for less than 1 year participated.
INTERVENTIONS: PT and OT were given according to protocols. For CT, services by social workers were offered.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Impairment-level Sum Score (ISS), the modified Greentest, and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) were used to determine effectiveness. Real medical costs, nonmedical costs, and productivity costs were distinguished and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost estimates.
RESULTS: The ISS, but not the Greentest and SIP, showed a significant difference between PT versus OT and CT. The mean adjuvant treatment costs were significantly higher for PT (Netherlands Guilders [NLG] 1,726) and OT (NLG 2,089) compared with CT (NLG 903). The mean total medical costs were not significantly different for the groups (PT, NLG 8,692; OT, NLG 13,023; and CT, NLG 7,888) (intention-to-treat analysis). The sensitivity analyses showed a moderate influence of the cost estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: PT results in clinically relevant improvement in RSD. Costs associated with adjuvant treatment are moderate compared to other medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of PT versus OT and CT were moderate or even dominant, thus PT was both more effective and less costly than its comparators.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app