| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-010-1675-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Marion Haas, Chris G. Maher, Luciana A. C. Machado, Maurits W. van Tulder |
| Abstract |
Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 217 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 19% |
| Researcher | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 55 | 24% |
| Unknown | 36 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,239,048
of 25,211,948 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#195
of 5,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,538
of 193,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,211,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,209 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 193,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.