Brent D Leininger, Karen M Kuntz, James S Hodges, Roni Evans, Eva Enns, Pamela Jo Johnson, Gert Bronfort
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain.","authors":"Brent D Leininger, Karen M Kuntz, James S Hodges, Roni Evans, Eva Enns, Pamela Jo Johnson, Gert Bronfort","doi":"10.1186/s12998-025-00599-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The United States spends more money on the care of back and neck pain than any other health condition. Despite this, the cost-effectiveness for many recommended treatments is unclear. Our primary objective for this project was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), supervised exercise therapy (ET), and home exercise and advice (HEA) for spinal pain in the U.S.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed cost and clinical outcome data from eight randomized trials conducted in the U.S. using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach. We calculated cost-effectiveness from the societal and healthcare perspective of various comparisons between SMT, ET, and HEA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life years as the main outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trials included a total of 1803 participants and 1488 (83%) provided complete data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probabilities of cost-effectiveness varied substantially between studies; thus, we did not conduct meta-analysis and report findings from individual trials. Cost-effectiveness findings were favorable for SMT compared to HEA for acute neck pain (ICERs below $50k/QALY) and when added to HEA for chronic back-related leg pain and chronic neck pain in older adults (better outcomes and lower costs). However, SMT was not likely cost-effective compared to HEA for chronic back pain in adults or when added to HEA for older adults (higher costs and worse outcomes). Findings for SMT were favorable when compared to ET in adults with chronic back pain and when added to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (better outcomes and lower costs) and chronic back pain in adolescents (ICERs below $50k/QALY). However, SMT is not likely cost-effective when compared to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (ICERs below $70k/QALY for exercise) and findings were inconsistent across outcomes in older adults with chronic back pain. Finally, ET may be cost-effective compared to HEA for adults with chronic neck pain (ICERs largely between $100-$200k/QALY), but not for chronic back pain or when added to HEA for older adults with chronic neck or back pain (higher costs and worse outcomes).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Cost-effectiveness findings differed between populations based on pain location, duration, and age.</p>","PeriodicalId":48572,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","volume":"33 1","pages":"36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12375277/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-025-00599-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The United States spends more money on the care of back and neck pain than any other health condition. Despite this, the cost-effectiveness for many recommended treatments is unclear. Our primary objective for this project was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), supervised exercise therapy (ET), and home exercise and advice (HEA) for spinal pain in the U.S.
Methods: We analyzed cost and clinical outcome data from eight randomized trials conducted in the U.S. using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach. We calculated cost-effectiveness from the societal and healthcare perspective of various comparisons between SMT, ET, and HEA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life years as the main outcome.
Results: The trials included a total of 1803 participants and 1488 (83%) provided complete data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probabilities of cost-effectiveness varied substantially between studies; thus, we did not conduct meta-analysis and report findings from individual trials. Cost-effectiveness findings were favorable for SMT compared to HEA for acute neck pain (ICERs below $50k/QALY) and when added to HEA for chronic back-related leg pain and chronic neck pain in older adults (better outcomes and lower costs). However, SMT was not likely cost-effective compared to HEA for chronic back pain in adults or when added to HEA for older adults (higher costs and worse outcomes). Findings for SMT were favorable when compared to ET in adults with chronic back pain and when added to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (better outcomes and lower costs) and chronic back pain in adolescents (ICERs below $50k/QALY). However, SMT is not likely cost-effective when compared to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (ICERs below $70k/QALY for exercise) and findings were inconsistent across outcomes in older adults with chronic back pain. Finally, ET may be cost-effective compared to HEA for adults with chronic neck pain (ICERs largely between $100-$200k/QALY), but not for chronic back pain or when added to HEA for older adults with chronic neck or back pain (higher costs and worse outcomes).
Discussion: Cost-effectiveness findings differed between populations based on pain location, duration, and age.
期刊介绍：
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies publishes manuscripts on all aspects of evidence-based information that is clinically relevant to chiropractors, manual therapists and related health care professionals.
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies is an open access journal that aims to provide chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals with clinically relevant, evidence-based information. Chiropractic and other manual therapies share a relatively broad diagnostic practice and treatment scope, emphasizing the structure and function of the body''s musculoskeletal framework (especially the spine). The practices of chiropractic and manual therapies are closely associated with treatments including manipulation, which is a key intervention. The range of services provided can also include massage, mobilisation, physical therapies, dry needling, lifestyle and dietary counselling, plus a variety of other associated therapeutic and rehabilitation approaches.
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies continues to serve as a critical resource in this field, and as an open access publication, is more readily available to practitioners, researchers and clinicians worldwide.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
