Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: a multicenter RCT in Sweden.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1186/s12891-025-08392-7
Filip Gedin, Martin Skeppholm, Vibeke Sparring, Niklas Zethraeus
{"title":"Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: a multicenter RCT in Sweden.","authors":"Filip Gedin, Martin Skeppholm, Vibeke Sparring, Niklas Zethraeus","doi":"10.1186/s12891-025-08392-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and the combination of physiotherapy and chiropractic care compared with information and advice for the treatment of patients with nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Ten primary care rehabilitation units in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Eighty-eight participants with nonspecific CLBP.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The participants were randomly assigned to receive physiotherapy, chiropractic care, combination treatment, or information and advice.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>This study measured the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), working status, and costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study revealed no statistically significant differences in any of the outcome measures when physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and combination treatment with information and advice were compared (p > 0.05). The ODI changes between baseline and the 6-month follow-up ranged from 6.13 to 12.56 across the treatment groups, indicating reduced disability in all groups. Compared with the other treatment options, the combination treatment resulted in the greatest QALY gain (0.418) and lowest cost (SEK 3,081).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with alternative standalone treatment options, the combination treatment strategy resulted in greater QALY gain and lower costs from a heath care perspective. Although the study did not detect statistically significant differences in outcomes or costs among the treatment options, the combination treatment showed promising potential for cost-effectiveness. Given the small sample size and low statistical power of the study, further clinical trials with fewer treatment arms and a focus on the combination group are warranted to confirm these findings. The insights gained from this study are important for informing the design and conduct of future clinical studies investigating the effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (2017-02-20: ISRCTN15830360).</p>","PeriodicalId":9189,"journal":{"name":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"26 1","pages":"190"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11853996/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08392-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and the combination of physiotherapy and chiropractic care compared with information and advice for the treatment of patients with nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in Sweden.

Design: A multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Ten primary care rehabilitation units in Sweden.

Participants: Eighty-eight participants with nonspecific CLBP.

Interventions: The participants were randomly assigned to receive physiotherapy, chiropractic care, combination treatment, or information and advice.

Main outcome measures: This study measured the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), working status, and costs.

Results: The study revealed no statistically significant differences in any of the outcome measures when physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and combination treatment with information and advice were compared (p > 0.05). The ODI changes between baseline and the 6-month follow-up ranged from 6.13 to 12.56 across the treatment groups, indicating reduced disability in all groups. Compared with the other treatment options, the combination treatment resulted in the greatest QALY gain (0.418) and lowest cost (SEK 3,081).

Conclusion: Compared with alternative standalone treatment options, the combination treatment strategy resulted in greater QALY gain and lower costs from a heath care perspective. Although the study did not detect statistically significant differences in outcomes or costs among the treatment options, the combination treatment showed promising potential for cost-effectiveness. Given the small sample size and low statistical power of the study, further clinical trials with fewer treatment arms and a focus on the combination group are warranted to confirm these findings. The insights gained from this study are important for informing the design and conduct of future clinical studies investigating the effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP.

Trial registration: The study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (2017-02-20: ISRCTN15830360).

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊骨神经疗法和物理疗法治疗慢性腰背痛的效果和成本效益:瑞典一项多中心 RCT 研究。
目的:比较瑞典非特异性慢性腰痛(CLBP)患者治疗的信息和建议,评价物理治疗、捏脊治疗以及物理治疗和捏脊联合治疗的效果和成本-效果。设计:多中心实用随机对照试验。环境:瑞典有10个初级保健康复单位。参与者:88例非特异性CLBP患者。干预措施:参与者被随机分配接受物理治疗,脊椎按摩护理,联合治疗,或信息和建议。主要结果测量:本研究测量了Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)、质量调整生命年(QALYs)、工作状态和成本。结果:研究显示,物理治疗、捏脊治疗和信息咨询联合治疗在任何结局指标上均无统计学差异(p < 0.05)。在基线和6个月随访期间,各治疗组的ODI变化范围为6.13至12.56,表明所有组的残疾都有所减少。与其他治疗方案相比,联合治疗的QALY增益最大(0.418),成本最低(3,081瑞典克朗)。结论:与其他单独治疗方案相比,从卫生保健的角度来看,联合治疗策略可获得更高的QALY收益和更低的成本。虽然该研究没有发现治疗方案在结果或成本上的统计学显著差异,但联合治疗显示出有希望的成本效益潜力。考虑到该研究样本量小,统计效力低,进一步的临床试验需要较少的治疗组,并将重点放在联合治疗组,以证实这些发现。从本研究中获得的见解对于研究CLBP治疗的有效性、成本和成本效益的未来临床研究的设计和实施具有重要意义。试验注册:该研究已在ISRCTN注册中心注册(2017-02-20:ISRCTN15830360)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1017
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. The scope of the Journal covers research into rheumatic diseases where the primary focus relates specifically to a component(s) of the musculoskeletal system.
期刊最新文献
Association between TMG-derived contractile muscle parameters and MRI-based muscle structure in sarcopenia. Effect of temporomandibular joint exercises on mechanical low back pain: a preliminary randomized controlled study. From general to precision rehabilitation: a systematic review of VMO-Targeted versus general quadriceps strengthening in patellofemoral dysplasia. Correction: A collaborative approach of finite element method and machine learning algorithms for biomechanical analysis of implants used in tibial shaft fractures. Effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy on kinesiophobia, exercise adherence, and back muscle function after lumbar fusion surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1