Do the Number of Visits and the Cost of Musculoskeletal Care Improve Outcomes? More May Not Be Better.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between health care use and the magnitude of change in patient-reported outcomes in individuals who received treatment for subacromial pain syndrome. The secondary objective was to determine the value of care, as measured by change in pain and disability per dollar spent. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that investigated the effects of nonsurgical care for subacromial pain syndrome. METHODS: Two groups of treatment responders were created, based on 1-year change in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score (high, 46.83 points; low, 8.21 points). Regression analysis was performed to determine the association between health care use and 1-year change in SPADI score. Baseline SPADI score was used as a covariate in the regression analysis. Value was measured by comparing health care visits and costs expended per SPADI 1-point change between responder groups. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included; 38 were classified as high responders (mean 1-year SPADI change score, 46.83 points) and 60 were classified as low responders (1-year SPADI change score, 8.21 points). Neither unadjusted medical visits (5.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.35, 7.44 versus 6.30; 95% CI: 5.14, 7.46) nor medical costs ($1404.86; 95% CI: $1109.34, $1779.09 versus $1679.26; 95% CI: $1391.54, $2026.48) were significantly different between high and low responders, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neither the number of visits nor the financial cost of nonsurgical shoulder- related care was associated with improvement in shoulder pain and disability at 1 year. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):642-648. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9440.

Is Myofascial Release Therapy Cost-Effective When Compared With Manual Therapy to Treat Workers' Mechanical Neck Pains?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to do a cost-benefit analysis of myofascial release therapy (MRT) compared to manual therapy (MT) for treating occupational mechanical neck pain. METHODS: Variables regarding the outcomes of the intervention were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion. Costs were assessed based on a social perspective using diary costs. Between-groups differences in average cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were assessed using bootstrap parametric techniques. The economic cost-benefit evaluation was with regard to an experimental parallel group study design. There were 59 participants. RESULTS: Myofascial released therapy showed significant improvement over MT for cervical mobility (side bending, rotation, and craniovertebral angle). The total cost of MRT was approximately 20% less (-$519.81; 95% confidence interval, -$1193.67 to $100.31) than that of MT, although this was not statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that MRT could be associated with lower economic costs. CONCLUSION: With probabilities of 93.9% and 95.8%, MRT seems to be cost-effective for treating mechanical neck pain without the need to add any additional cost to obtain a better clinical benefit. Consequently, we believe it could be included in the clinical practice guidelines of different Spanish health care institutions.

Service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the dynamics and temporal changes in manual therapy service utilisation may assist with healthcare planning and resource allocation. The objectives of this study were to quantify, describe, and compare service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017. METHODS: Data regarding the number of services, total cost, and benefits paid were extracted for each manual therapy profession (i.e. chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy) for the period 2008-2017 from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The number of registered providers for each profession were obtained from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Descriptive statistics were produced for two time periods (i.e. 2008-2012 and 2013-2017) for each manual therapy profession. Annual percentage change during each time period was estimated by fitting Poisson regression models. Test for the equality of regression coefficients was used to compare the trends in the two time periods within each profession, and to compare the trends across professions within a time period. RESULTS: A cumulative total of 198.6 million manual therapy services with a total cost of $12.8 billion was provided within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017. Although service utilisation and total cost increased throughout the ten-year period, the annual growth was significantly lower during 2013-2017 than 2008-2012. Whereas osteopathy and physiotherapy experienced significant annual growth in the number of services and total cost during 2013-2017, negative growth in the number of services was observed for chiropractic during the same period. The annual number of services per provider declined significantly for chiropractic and physiotherapy between 2013 and 2017. CONCLUSION: Service provision under private health insurance general treatment cover constitute a major source of revenue for manual therapy professions in Australia. Although manual therapy service utilisation increased throughout the ten-year period from 2008 to 2017, the annual growth declined. There were diverging trends across the three professions, including significantly greater decline in annual growth for chiropractic than for osteopathy and physiotherapy.

Stratified exercise therapy compared with usual care by physical therapists in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial protocol (OCTOPuS study).

OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed. CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.

The Influence of a Guideline-Concordant Stepped Care Approach on Downstream Health Care Utilization in Patients with Spine and Shoulder Pain.

BACKGROUND: Stepped care approaches are emphasized in guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, recommending less invasive or risky evidence-based intervention, such as manual therapy (MT), before more aggressive interventions such as opioid prescriptions. The order and timing of care can alter recovery trajectories. OBJECTIVE: To compare one-year downstream health care utilization in patients with spine or shoulder disorders who received only MT vs MT and opioids. The secondary aim was to compare differences based on order and timing of opioids and MT. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. METHODS: Patients with an initial consultation for a spine or shoulder disorder who received at least one visit for MT were included. Person-level data from the Military Health System Management and Reporting Tool (M2) database were aggregated by a senior health care analyst at Madigan Army Medical Center. Groups were created based on the order and timing of interventions provided. Outcomes included health care utilization (medical costs and visits) over the year following initial consultation. Control measures included metabolic, mental health, chronic pain, sleep, and substance abuse comorbidities, as well as prior opioid prescriptions. Generalized linear models with gamma log links were run due to the heavily skewed nature of cost data. RESULTS: From 1,876 unique patients with spine or shoulder disorders receiving MT, 1,162 (61.9%) also received prescription opioids. Mean one-year costs in the MT-only group ($5,410, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $5,109 to $5,730) were significantly lower than in the MT+opioid group ($10,498, 95% CI = $10,043 to $10,973). When patients had both treatments, mean one-year costs in the MT-first ($10,782, 95% CI = $10,050 to $11,567) were significantly lower (P = 0.030) than opioid-first ($11,938, 95% CI = $11,272 to $12,643), and MT-first had a significantly lower mean days' supply of opioids (34.2 vs 70.9, P < 0.001) and mean number of unique opioid prescriptions (3.1 vs 6.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MT alone resulted in lower downstream costs than with opioid prescriptions. Both the order of treatment (MT before opioid prescriptions) and the timing of treatment (MT < 30 days) resulted in a significant reduction of resources (costs, visits, and opioid utilization) in the year after initial consultation. Clinicians should consider the implications of first-choice decisions and the timing of care for treatment choices utilized for patients with spine and shoulder disorders.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Manual Physical Therapy Versus Surgery for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Evidence From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) results in substantial societal costs and can be treated either by nonsurgical or surgical approaches. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in cost-effectiveness of manual physical therapy versus surgery in women with CTS. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 120 women with a clinical and an electromyographic diagnosis of CTS were randomized through concealed allocation to either manual physical therapy or surgery. Interventions consisted of 3 sessions of manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, or decompression/release of the carpal tunnel. Societal costs and health-related quality of life (estimated by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D] scale) over 1 year were used to generate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year ratios for each treatment. RESULTS: The analysis was possible for 118 patients (98%). Incremental quality-adjusted life years showed greater cost-effectiveness in favor of manual physical therapy (difference, 0.135; 95% confidence interval: 0.134, 0.136). Manual therapy was significantly less costly than surgery (mean difference in cost per patient, €2576; P<.001). Patients in the surgical group received a greater number of other treatments and made more visits to medical doctors than those receiving manual physical therapy (P = .02). Absenteeism from paid work was significantly higher in the surgery group (P<.001). The major contributors to societal costs were the treatment protocol (surgery versus manual therapy mean difference, €106 980) and absenteeism from paid work (surgery versus manual physical therapy mean difference, €42 224). CONCLUSION: Manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, has been found to be equally effective but less costly (ie, more cost-effective) than surgery for women with CTS. From a cost-benefit perspective, the proposed CTS manual physical therapy intervention can be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analyses, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(2):55-63. Epub 30 Nov 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8483.

Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation of Chuna manual therapy for chronic neck pain: protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a highly prevalent medical condition that incurs substantial social burden. Although manual therapy is widely used for treatment of neck pain, the body of evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is not conclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the effect, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy, a traditional Korean manual therapy for treatment of various musculoskeletal complaints. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a two-armed parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. A total 108 patients with chronic neck pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, numeric rating scale [NRS] of neck pain ≥ 5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospital sites. Participants will be allotted to one of two groups (n = 54, respectively): the Chuna manual therapy group, and the usual care (conventional physical therapy and medication treatment) group. Ten sessions of Chuna manual therapy or usual care will be administered twice a week for five weeks. Since the study design does not permit patient or physician blinding, the outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck pain at 5 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the VAS of radiating arm pain, NRS of neck pain and radiating arm pain, Vernon-Mior neck disability index (NDI), Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), EQ-VAS, patient global impression of change (PGIC), economic evaluation, adverse effects, and drug consumption. Follow-up outcome assessments will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy and usual care on chronic neck pain. Adverse events, and costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be evaluated to assess safety and exploratory cost-effectiveness (economic evaluation). This study aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0002732 . Registered on 13 March 2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03294785 . Registered on 27 September 2017.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure-the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), multi-centre, randomised, 12 month, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Early Structured Physiotherapy versus manipulation under anaesthesia versus arthroscopic capsular release for patients referred to secondary care with a primary frozen shoulder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder (also known as adhesive capsulitis) occurs when the capsule, or the soft tissue envelope around the ball and socket shoulder joint, becomes scarred and contracted, making the shoulder tight, painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 10 women of working age. Although this condition can settle with time (typically taking 1 to 3 years), for some people it causes severe symptoms and needs referral to hospital. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two invasive and costly surgical interventions that are commonly used in secondary care in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with a non-surgical comparator of Early Structured Physiotherapy. METHODS: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 500 adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder, and who have radiographs that exclude other pathology. Early Structured Physiotherapy with an intra-articular steroid injection will be compared with manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection or arthroscopic (keyhole) capsular release followed by manipulation. Both surgical interventions will be followed with a programme of post-procedural physiotherapy. These treatments will be undertaken in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Oxford Shoulder Score (a patient self-reported assessment of shoulder function) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomisation; and on the day that treatment starts and 6 months later. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, the EQ-5D-5 L score, pain, extent of recovery and complications. We will explore the acceptability of the different treatments to patients and health care professionals using qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The three treatments being compared are the most frequently used in secondary care in the NHS, but there is uncertainty about which one works best and at what cost. UK FROST is a rigorously designed and adequately powered study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of this common condition in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

A commentary review of the cost effectiveness of manual therapies for neck and low back pain.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Neck and low back pain (NLBP) are global health problems, which diminish quality of life and consume vast economic resources. Cost effectiveness in healthcare is the minimal amount spent to obtain acceptable outcomes. Studies on manual therapies often fail to identify which manual therapy intervention or combinations with other interventions is the most cost effective. The purpose of this commentary is to sample the dialogue within the literature on the cost effectiveness of evidence-based manual therapies with a particular focus on the neck and low back regions. METHODS: This commentary identifies and presents the available literature on the cost effectiveness of manual therapies for NLBP. Key words searched were neck and low back pain, cost effectiveness, and manual therapy to select evidence-based articles. Eight articles were identified and presented for discussion. RESULTS: The lack of homogeneity, in the available literature, makes difficult any valid comparison among the various cost effectiveness studies. DISCUSSION: Potential outcome bias in each study is dependent upon the lens through which it is evaluated. If evaluated from a societal perspective, the conclusion slants toward "adequate" interventions in an effort to decrease costs rather than toward the most efficacious interventions with the best outcomes. When cost data are assessed according to a healthcare (or individual) perspective, greater value is placed on quality of life, the patient's beliefs, and the "willingness to pay."

Utilization of Physical Therapy Intervention Among Patients With Plantar Fasciitis in the United States.

Study Design Retrospective observational study. Background Plantar fasciitis is responsible for 1 million ambulatory patient care visits annually in the United States. Few studies have investigated practice patterns in the treatment of patients with plantar fasciitis. Objective To assess physical therapist utilization and employment of manual therapy and supervised rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with plantar fasciitis. Methods A retrospective review of the PearlDiver patient record database was used to evaluate physical therapist utilization and use of manual therapy and supervised rehabilitation in patients with plantar fasciitis between 2007 and 2011. An International Classification of Diseases code (728.71) was used to identify plantar fasciitis, and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify evaluations (97001), manual therapy (97140), and rehabilitation services (97110, 97530, 97112). Results A total of 819 963 unique patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis accounted for 5 739 737 visits from 2007 to 2011, comprising 2.7% of all patients in the database. Only 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 7.0%, 7.1%) of patients received a physical therapist evaluation. Of the 57 800 patients evaluated by a physical therapist (59.8% female), 50 382 (87.2% ± 0.4%) received manual therapy, with significant increases in utilization per annum. A large proportion (89.5% ± 0.4%) received rehabilitation following physical therapist evaluation. Conclusion Despite plantar fasciitis being a frequently occurring musculoskeletal condition, a small proportion of patients with plantar fasciitis were seen by physical therapists. Most patients who were evaluated by a physical therapist received manual therapy and a course of supervised rehabilitation as part of their plan of care. Level of Evidence Treatment, level 2a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):49-55. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.6999.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study).

BACKGROUND: While Chuna manual therapy is a Korean manual therapy widely used primarily for low back pain (LBP)-related disorders in Korea, well-designed studies on the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy are scarce. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a three-armed, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial. Sixty severe nonacute LBP patients (pain duration of at least 3 weeks, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥5) will be recruited at four Korean medicine hospitals. Participants will be randomly allocated to the Chuna group (n = 20), usual care group (n = 20), or Chuna plus usual care group (n = 20) for 6 weeks of treatment. Usual care will consist of orally administered conventional medicine, physical therapy, and back pain care education. The trial will be conducted with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary endpoint will be NRS of LBP at week 7 post randomization. Secondary outcomes include NRS of leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire, lumbar range of motion (ROM), the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) health survey, the Health Utility Index III (HUI-III), and economic evaluation and safety data. Post-treatment follow-ups will be conducted at 1, 4, and 10 weeks after conclusion of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy compared to conventional usual care. Costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be analyzed for exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. If this pilot study does not reach a definite conclusion due to its small sample size, these results will be used as preliminary results to calculate sample size for future large-scale clinical trials and contribute in the assessment of feasibility of a full-scale multicenter trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850 . Registered on 17 March 2016.

Is manipulative therapy clinically necessary for relief of neck pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and critically assess the effificacy of Eastern and Western manipulative therapies for the treatment of neck pain in adults. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, etc. from their inception date to January 2014 with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative control or blank control, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis and levels of evidence were performed by Revman5.1 and Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical trials with adequate randomization were included in this review, 11 of them had a low risk of bias. The primary outcome for short-term pain had no significant differences, however, the secondary outcome, only the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of intermediate-term [n=916, pooled mean differences (MD) =-0.29, P=0.02], the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of short-term (n=1,145, pooled MD=-2.10, P<0.01), and intermediate-term (n=987, pooled MD=-1.45, P=0.01) were signifificantly reduced with moderate quality evidence. However, it supported the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of the Visual Analogue Scale and NPRS pain score to be 13 mm, while NDI was 3.5 points. The meta-analysis only suggested a trend in favor of manipulative therapy rather than clinical signifificance. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the existing evidences for the clinical value of Eastern or Western manipulative therapy for neck pain of short-term follow-up according to MCIDs. The limitations of our review related to blinding, allocation concealment and small sample size.

Economic evaluation of manual therapy for musculoskeletal diseases: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis of evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Manual therapy is the non-surgical conservative management of musculoskeletal disorders using the practitioner's hands on the patient's body for diagnosing and treating disease. The aim of this study is to systematically review trial-based economic evaluations of manual therapy relative to other interventions used for the management of musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on the economic evaluation of manual therapy for musculoskeletal diseases will be included in the review. The following databases will be searched from their inception: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Econlit, Mantis, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), National Health Service Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (NHS DARE), National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Database (NHS HTA), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), CENTRAL, five Korean medical databases (Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), Research Information Service System (RISS), DBPIA, Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal (KTKP) and KoreaMed) and three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and Wanfang). The evidence for the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit of manual therapy for musculoskeletal diseases will be assessed as the primary outcome. Health-related quality of life and adverse effects will be assessed as secondary outcomes. We will critically appraise the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Drummond checklist. Results will be summarised using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the study will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal and/or conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015026757.

Cost-effectiveness of manual therapy versus physiotherapy in patients with sub-acute and chronic neck pain: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy according to the Utrecht School (MTU) in comparison with physiotherapy (PT) in sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain patients from a societal perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 52-week randomized controlled trial, in which 90 patients were randomized to the MTU group and 91 to the PT group. Clinical outcomes included perceived recovery (yes/no), functional status (continuous and yes/no), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. To estimate statistical uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques were used. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. During follow-up, intervention costs (ß:€-32; 95 %CI: -54 to -10) and healthcare costs (ß:€-126; 95 %CI: -235 to -32) were significantly lower in the MTU group than in the PT group, whereas unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher (ß:€186; 95 %CI:19-557). Societal costs did not significantly differ between groups (ß:€-96; 95 %CI:-1975-2022). For QALYs and functional status (yes/no), the maximum probability of MTU being cost-effective in comparison with PT was low (≤0.54). For perceived recovery (yes/no) and functional status (continuous), a large amount of money must be paid per additional unit of effect to reach a reasonable probability of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, MTU was not cost-effective in comparison with PT in patients with sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain for perceived recovery, functional status, and QALYs. As no clear total societal cost and effect differences were found between MTU and PT, the decision about what intervention to administer, reimburse, and/or implement can be based on the preferences of the patient and the decision-maker at hand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

A cable-driven wrist robotic rehabilitator using a novel torque-field controller for human motion training.

Rehabilitation technologies have great potentials in assisted motion training for stroke patients. Considering that wrist motion plays an important role in arm dexterous manipulation of activities of daily living, this paper focuses on developing a cable-driven wrist robotic rehabilitator (CDWRR) for motion training or assistance to subjects with motor disabilities. The CDWRR utilizes the wrist skeletal joints and arm segments as the supporting structure and takes advantage of cable-driven parallel design to build the system, which brings the properties of flexibility, low-cost, and low-weight. The controller of the CDWRR is designed typically based on a virtual torque-field, which is to plan "assist-as-needed" torques for the spherical motion of wrist responding to the orientation deviation in wrist motion training. The torque-field controller can be customized to different levels of rehabilitation training requirements by tuning the field parameters. Additionally, a rapidly convergent parameter self-identification algorithm is developed to obtain the uncertain parameters automatically for the floating wearable structure of the CDWRR. Finally, experiments on a healthy subject are carried out to demonstrate the performance of the controller and the feasibility of the CDWRR on wrist motion training or assistance.

Costs and utilities of manual therapy and orthopedic standard care for low-prioritized orthopedic outpatients of working age: a cost consequence analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment for musculoskeletal disorders in primary care in Sweden is generally initiated with advice and medication. Second-line therapy is physiotherapy and/or injection and radiography; third-line therapy is referral to an orthopedist. Manual therapy is not routine. It is a challenge to identify patients who benefit from treatment by different specialists. The current referral strategy probably contributes to long waiting lists in orthopedic departments, which is costly and implies prolonged suffering for the patients. The aim of this health economic evaluation was to compare costs and outcomes from naprapathic manual therapy (NMT) with orthopedic standard care for common, low-prioritized, nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders, after second-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnose Related Groups were used to define the costs, and the SF-36 was encoded to evaluate the outcomes in cost per quality adjusted life years gained. RESULTS: Results from a 12 months' follow-up showed significantly larger improvement for the NMT than for orthopedic standard care, significantly lower mean cost per patient; 5427 SEK (*Price level 2009; 1 Euro=106,213 SEK; 1 US Dollar=76,457 SEK) (95% confidence interval, 3693-7161) compared to14298 SEK (95% confidence interval, 8322-20,274), and more gains in outcomes in cost per quality adjusted life years per patient (0.066 compared with 0.026). Thus the result is "dominant." DISCUSSION: It is plausible that improved outcomes and reasonable cost savings for low-prioritized nonsurgical outpatients would be attainable if NMT were available as an additional standard care option in orthopedic outpatient clinics.

Manual therapy, exercise therapy, or both, in addition to usual care, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. 2: economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of manual physiotherapy, exercise physiotherapy, and a combination of these therapies for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. METHODS: 206 Adults who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee osteoarthritis were included in an economic evaluation from the perspectives of the New Zealand health system and society alongside a randomized controlled trial. Resource use was collected using the Osteoarthritis Costs and Consequences Questionnaire. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the Short Form 6D. Willingness-to-pay threshold values were based on one to three times New Zealand's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of NZ$ 29,149 (in 2009). RESULTS: All three treatment programmes resulted in incremental QALY gains relative to usual care. From the perspective of the New Zealand health system, exercise therapy was the only treatment to result in an incremental cost utility ratio under one time GDP per capita at NZ$ 26,400 (-$34,081 to $103,899). From the societal perspective manual therapy was cost saving relative to usual care for most scenarios studied. Exercise therapy resulted in incremental cost utility ratios regarded as cost effective but was not cost saving. For most scenarios combined therapy was not as cost effective as the two therapies alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, exercise therapy and manual therapy were more cost effective than usual care at policy relevant values of willingness-to-pay from both the perspective of the health system and society. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000130369.