BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is frequently used by health professionals to manage spinal pain. With many treatments having comparable outcomes to SMT, determining the cost-effectiveness of these treatments has been identified as a high research priority. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of SMT compared to other treatment options for people with spinal pain of any duration. METHODS: We searched eight clinical and economic databases and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Full economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one SMT arm were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the CHEC-list. RESULTS: Six cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were included. All included studies had a low risk of bias scoring 16/19 on the CHEC-List. SMT was found to be a cost-effective treatment to manage neck and back pain when used alone or in combination with other techniques compared to GP care, exercise and physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the use of SMT in clinical practice as a cost-effective treatment when used alone or in combination with other treatment approaches. However, as this conclusion is primarily based on single studies more high quality research is needed to identify whether these findings are applicable in other settings.
AD - The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, P.O. Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia. AN - 22429823 BT - Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology ET - 2012/03/21 IS - 5 LA - Eng N1 - Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological KinesiologyJ Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012 Mar 17. N2 -BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is frequently used by health professionals to manage spinal pain. With many treatments having comparable outcomes to SMT, determining the cost-effectiveness of these treatments has been identified as a high research priority. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of SMT compared to other treatment options for people with spinal pain of any duration. METHODS: We searched eight clinical and economic databases and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Full economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one SMT arm were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the CHEC-list. RESULTS: Six cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were included. All included studies had a low risk of bias scoring 16/19 on the CHEC-List. SMT was found to be a cost-effective treatment to manage neck and back pain when used alone or in combination with other techniques compared to GP care, exercise and physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the use of SMT in clinical practice as a cost-effective treatment when used alone or in combination with other treatment approaches. However, as this conclusion is primarily based on single studies more high quality research is needed to identify whether these findings are applicable in other settings.
PY - 2012 SE - 655-62 SN - 1873-5711 (Electronic)1050-6411 (Linking) T2 - Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology TI - Spinal manipulation epidemiology: Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies VL - 22 ER -