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.

Chiropractic maintenance care - what's new? A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Maintenance Care is a traditional chiropractic approach, whereby patients continue treatment after optimum benefit is reached. A review conducted in 1996 concluded that evidence behind this therapeutic strategy was lacking, and a second review from 2008 reached the same conclusion. Since then, a systematic research program in the Nordic countries was undertaken to uncover the definition, indications, prevalence of use and beliefs regarding Maintenance Care to make it possible to investigate its clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness. As a result, an evidence-based clinical study could be performed. It was therefore timely to review the evidence. Method: Using the search terms "chiropractic OR manual therapy" AND "Maintenance Care OR prevention", PubMed and Web of Science were searched, and the titles and abstracts reviewed for eligibility, starting from 2007. In addition, a search for "The Nordic Maintenance Care Program" was conducted. Because of the diversity of topics and study designs, a systematic review with narrative reporting was undertaken. Results: Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary/tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor 'when needed'. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care. Conclusion: Knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy for chronic neck pain: a study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Doin therapy is a manual therapy used in Korean rehabilitation medicine. Recently, the use of acupuncture with Doin has increased in clinics and clinical trials have demonstrated its effects. However, well-designed studies examining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy are rare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with Doin therapy. A total of 124 patients (with a neck pain duration of 6 months or longer and a Numeric Rating Scale ≥5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospitals. Patients will be randomly allocated to acupuncture with Doin therapy (n=62) and acupuncture alone (n=62) for 5 weeks of treatment. This study will be carried out with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary outcome measure will consist of improvement in neck pain using the Visual Analogue Scale at 6 weeks. The secondary outcomes including measures of pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life and economic evaluation will be conducted at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after treatment ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine and the Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital at Gangdong. Dissemination will occur after the findings from this study are published in other peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03558178; KCT0003068; Pre-results.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Chronic Low Back Pain and Chronic Neck Pain.

Many recommended nonpharmacologic therapies for patients with chronic spinal pain require visits to providers such as acupuncturists and chiropractors. Little information is available to inform third-party payers' coverage policies regarding ongoing use of these therapies. This study offers contingent valuation-based estimates of patient willingness to pay (WTP) for pain reductions from a large (n = 1,583) sample of patients using ongoing chiropractic care to manage their chronic low back and neck pain. Average WTP estimates were $45.98 (45.8) per month per 1-point reduction in current pain for chronic low back pain and $37.32 (38.0) for chronic neck pain. These estimates met a variety of validity checks including that individuals' values define a downward-sloping demand curve for these services. Comparing these WTP estimates with patients' actual use of chiropractic care over the next 3 months indicates that these patients are likely "buying" perceived pain reductions from what they believe their pain would have been if they didn't see their chiropractor-that is, they value maintenance of their current mild pain levels. These results provide some evidence for copay levels and their relationship to patient demand, but call into question ongoing coverage policies that require the documentation of continued improvement or of experienced clinical deterioration with treatment withdrawal. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides estimates of reported WTP for pain reduction from a large sample of patients using chiropractic care to manage their chronic spinal pain and compares these estimates to what these patients do for care over the next 3 months, to inform coverage policies for ongoing care.

Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation.

A cluster-randomized controlled trial, WorkUp, was conducted for working-aged patients at risk of sick leave or on short-term sick leave due to acute/subacute neck and/or back pain in Sweden. The purpose of WorkUp was to facilitate participants to stay at work or in case of sick leave, return-to-work. The aim of this study was to study whether the WorkUp trial was cost-effective. Patients in the intervention and reference group received structured evidence-based physiotherapy, while patients in the intervention group also received a work place dialogue with the employer as an add-on. The participants, 352 in total, were recruited from 20 physiotherapeutic units in primary healthcare in southern Sweden. The economic evaluation was performed both from a healthcare and a societal perspective with a 12-month time frame with extensive univariate sensitivity analyses. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with outcomes measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and proportion working for at least 4 weeks in a row without reported sick leave at 12-month follow-up. From the healthcare perspective, the ICER was €23,606 (2013 price year) per QALY gain. From the societal perspective the intervention was dominating, i.e.. less costly and more effective than reference care. Bootstrap analysis showed that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective at €50,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY was 85% from the societal perspective. Structured evidence-based physiotherapeutic care together with workplace dialogue is a cost-effective alternative from both a societal and a healthcare perspective for acute/subacute neck and/or back pain patients.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02609750.

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.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tuina for Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Tuina with a No-Intervention Waiting List.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether tuina is more effective and cost-effective in reducing pain compared to no intervention in patients with chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Single-center randomized two-armed controlled trial. SETTING: University outpatient clinic specialized in Integrative Medicine. SUBJECTS: Outpatients with chronic neck pain were randomly allocated to tuina or no intervention. INTERVENTION: Six tuina treatments within 3 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean neck pain intensity during the previous 7 days on a visual analogue scale after 4 weeks (VAS, 0-100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain). Secondary outcomes included Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), health-related quality of life (12-item quality-of-life questionnaire [SF-12]), medication intake, and cost-effectiveness after 4 and 12 weeks. Statistical analysis included analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values and a full economic analysis from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Altogether, 92 outpatients were included (46 in both groups, 87% female, mean age 45.4 [standard deviation ±9.7], and mean VAS 57.7 ± 11.5). Tuina treatment led to a clinically meaningful reduction in neck pain intensity (group differences, 4 weeks: -22.8 mm [95% confidence interval, -31.7 to -13.8]; p < 0.001 and 12 weeks: -17.9 mm [-27.1 to -8.8], p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were observed. Total costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) did not differ significantly between the groups. When taking group differences into account independently from their statistical significance, costs per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) would range within a cost-effective area from €7,566 (for costs €10.28 per session) to €39,414 (cost €35 per session). CONCLUSION: An additional treatment with six tuina sessions over 3 weeks was effective, safe and relatively cost-effective for patients with chronic neck pain. A future trial should compare tuina to other best care options.

Current practice and usual care of major cervical disorders in Korea: A cross-sectional study of Korean health insurance review and assessment service national patient sample data.

Neck pain is a highly common condition and is the 4th major cause of years lived with disability. Previous literature has focused on the effect of specific treatments, and observations of actual practice are lacking to date. This study examined Korean health insurance review and assessment service (HIRA) claims data to the aim of assessing prevalence and comparing current medical practice and costs of cervical disorders in Korea.Current practice trends were determined through assessment of prevalence, total expenses, per-patient expense, average days in care, average days of visits, sociodemographic characteristics, distribution of medical costs, and frequency of treatment types of high frequency cervical disorders (cervical sprain/strain, cervical intervertebral disc displacement [IDD], and cervicalgia).Although the number of cervical IDD patients was few, total expenses, per-patient expense, average days in care, and average days of visits were highest. The proportion of women was higher than men in all 3 groups with highest prevalence in the ≥50s middle-aged population for IDD compared to sprain/strain. Primary care settings were commonly used for ambulatory care, of which approximately 70% chose orthopedic specialist treatment. In analysis of medical expenditure distribution, costs of visit (consultation) (22%-34%) and physical therapy (14%-16%) were in the top 3 for all 3 disorders. Although heat and electrical therapies were the most frequently used physical therapies, traction use was high in the cervical IDD group. In nonnarcotics, aceclofenac and diclofenac were the most commonly used NSAIDs, and pethidine was their counterpart in narcotics.This study investigated practice trends and cost distribution of treatment regimens for major cervical disorders, providing current usage patterns to healthcare policy decision makers, and the detailed treatment reports are expected to be of use to clinicians and researchers in understanding current usual care.

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.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Neck Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by provider patterns of care for the treatment of neck pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of neck-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the NCSHP using ICD-9 diagnostic codes for uncomplicated neck pain (UNP) and complicated neck pain (CNP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least average charges for both UNP and CNP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for either UNP or CNP, MD care with PT was generally less expensive than MD care with DC care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and PT care was on average more expensive than MD and DC care for either UNP or CNP. Risk-adjusted charges for patients in the middle quintile of risk (available 2006-2009) were lower for chiropractic patients with or without medical care or referral care to other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for UNP or CNP compared to MD care with or without PT care, when care included referral providers or services. This finding was reversed when care did not include referral providers or services. Risk-adjusted charges for UNP and CNP patients were lower for DC care patterns.

An Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures System in UK Chiropractic Practices: A Feasibility Study of Routine Collection of Outcomes and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of collecting valid and widely used health outcomes, including information concerning cost of care, using a Web-based patient-driven patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) collection process within a cohort of UK chiropractic practices. METHODS: A Web-based PROM system (Care Response) was used. Patients with low back and neck pain were recruited from a group of chiropractic practices located in the United Kingdom. Information collected included demographic data, generic and condition-specific PROMs at the initial consultation and 90 days later, patient-reported experience measures, and additional health seeking to estimate costs of care. RESULTS: A group of 33 clinics provided information from a total of 1895 patients who completed baseline questionnaires with 844 (45%) completing the measures at 90-day follow-up. Subsequent outcomes suggest that more than 70% of patients improved over the course of treatment regardless of the outcome used. Using the baseline as a virtual counterfactual with respect to follow-up, we calculated quality-adjusted life years and the cost thereof resulting in a mean quality-adjusted life years gained of 0.8 with an average cost of £895 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: Routine collection of PROMs, including information about cost, is feasible and can be achieved using an online system within a clinical practice environment. We describe a Web-based collection system and discuss the choice of measures leading to a comprehensive understanding of outcomes and costs in routine practice.

Alexander Technique Lessons or Acupuncture Sessions for Persons With Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of chronic neck pain may benefit from additional active self-care-oriented approaches. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture versus usual care for persons with chronic, nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN: Three-group randomized, controlled trial. (Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN15186354). SETTING: U.K. primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with neck pain lasting at least 3 months, a score of at least 28% on the Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ) for neck pain and associated disability, and no serious underlying pathology. INTERVENTION: 12 acupuncture sessions or 20 one-to-one Alexander lessons (both 600 minutes total) plus usual care versus usual care alone. MEASUREMENTS: NPQ score (primary outcome) at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months (primary end point) and Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale score, quality of life, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 517 patients were recruited, and the median duration of neck pain was 6 years. Mean attendance was 10 acupuncture sessions and 14 Alexander lessons. Between-group reductions in NPQ score at 12 months versus usual care were 3.92 percentage points for acupuncture (95% CI, 0.97 to 6.87 percentage points) (P = 0.009) and 3.79 percentage points for Alexander lessons (CI, 0.91 to 6.66 percentage points) (P = 0.010). The 12-month reductions in NPQ score from baseline were 32% for acupuncture and 31% for Alexander lessons. Participant self-efficacy improved for both interventions versus usual care at 6 months (P < 0.001) and was significantly associated (P < 0.001) with 12-month NPQ score reductions (acupuncture, 3.34 percentage points [CI, 2.31 to 4.38 percentage points]; Alexander lessons, 3.33 percentage points [CI, 2.22 to 4.44 percentage points]). No reported serious adverse events were considered probably or definitely related to either intervention. LIMITATION: Practitioners belonged to the 2 main U.K.-based professional associations, which may limit generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture sessions and Alexander Technique lessons both led to significant reductions in neck pain and associated disability compared with usual care at 12 months. Enhanced self-efficacy may partially explain why longer-term benefits were sustained. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Arthritis Research UK.

The effect of massage therapy and/or exercise therapy on subacute or long-lasting neck pain--the Stockholm neck trial (STONE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a major health problem in populations worldwide and an economic burden in modern societies due to its high prevalence and costs in terms of health care expenditures and lost productivity. Massage and exercise therapy are widely used management options for neck pain. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness for subacute and long-lasting neck pain. This study protocol describes a randomized controlled trial aiming to determine the effect of massage and/or exercise therapy on subacute and long-lasting neck pain over the course of 1 year. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial in which at least 600 study participants with subacute or long-lasting nonspecific neck pain will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of four treatment arms: massage therapy (A), exercise therapy (B), exercise therapy plus massage therapy (C) and advice to stay active (D). The study has an E-health approach, and study participants are being recruited through advertising with a mix of traditional and online marketing channels. Web-based self-report questionnaires measure the main outcomes at 7, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after inclusion. The primary outcomes are a clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain-related disability at follow-up, measured with a modified version of the Chronic Pain Questionnaire (CPQ). The secondary outcomes are global improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), sick leave, drug consumption and healthcare utilization. Adverse events are measured by questionnaires at return visits to the clinic, and automated text messages (SMSes) survey neck pain intensity and pain-related disability every week over one year. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide clinicians and stakeholders much needed knowledge to plan medical care for subacute and long-lasting neck pain disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01453590. Date of registration: 3 July 2014.

Alexander Technique Lessons, Acupuncture Sessions or usual care for patients with chronic neck pain (ATLAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is a common condition in the adult population. More research is needed to evaluate interventions aiming to facilitate beneficial long-term change. We propose to evaluate the effect of Alexander Technique lessons and acupuncture in a rigorously conducted pragmatic trial with an embedded qualitative study. METHODS/DESIGN: We will recruit 500 patients who have been diagnosed with neck pain in primary care, who have continued to experience neck pain for at least three months with 28% minimum cut-off score on the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). We will exclude patients with serious underlying pathology, prior cervical spine surgery, history of psychosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoporosis, haemophilia, cancer, HIV or hepatitis, or with alcohol or drug dependency currently or in the last 12 months, or actively pursuing compensation or with pending litigation.The York Trials Unit will randomly allocate participants using a secure computer-based system. We will use block randomisation with allocation to each intervention arm being unambiguously concealed from anyone who might subvert the randomisation process.Participants will be randomised in equal proportions to Alexander Technique lessons, acupuncture or usual care alone. Twenty 30-minute Alexander Technique lessons will be provided by teachers registered with the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique and twelve 50-minute sessions of acupuncture will be provided by acupuncturists registered with the British Acupuncture Council. All participants will continue to receive usual GP care.The primary outcome will be the NPQ at 12 months, with the secondary time point at 6 months, and an area-under-curve analysis will include 3, 6 and 12 month time-points. Adverse events will be documented. Potential intervention effect modifiers and mediators to be explored include: self-efficacy, stress management, and the incorporation of practitioner advice about self-care and lifestyle. Qualitative material will be used to address issues of safety, acceptability and factors that impact on longer term outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will provide robust evidence on whether there are significant clinical benefits to patients, economic benefits demonstrating value for money, and sufficient levels of acceptability and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15186354.

Efficacy of manual therapy treatments for people with cervicogenic dizziness and pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic dizziness is a disabling condition characterised by postural unsteadiness that is aggravated by cervical spine movements and associated with a painful and/or stiff neck. Two manual therapy treatments (Mulligan's Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) and Maitland's passive joint mobilisations) are used by physiotherapists to treat this condition but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support their use. The aim of this study is to conduct a randomised controlled trial to compare these two forms of manual therapy (Mulligan glides and Maitland mobilisations) to each other and to a placebo in reducing symptoms of cervicogenic dizziness in the longer term and to conduct an economic evaluation of the interventions. METHODS: Participants with symptoms of dizziness described as imbalance, together with a painful and/or stiff neck will be recruited via media releases, advertisements and mail-outs to medical practitioners in the Hunter region of NSW, Australia. Potential participants will be screened by a physiotherapist and a neurologist to rule out other causes of their dizziness. Once diagnosed with cervciogenic dizziness, 90 participants will be randomly allocated to one of three groups: Maitland mobilisations plus range-of-motion exercises, Mulligan SNAGs plus self-SNAG exercises or placebo. Participants will receive two to six treatments over six weeks. The trial will have unblinded treatment but blinded outcome assessments. Assessments will occur at baseline, post-treatment, six weeks, 12 weeks, six months and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome will be intensity of dizziness. Other outcome measures will be frequency of dizziness, disability, intensity of cervical pain, cervical range of motion, balance, head repositioning, adverse effects and treatment satisfaction. Economic outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the methods for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two manual therapy techniques in the treatment of people with cervicogenic dizziness for which there is limited established evidence-based treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12611000073909.

Where the United States spends its spine dollars: expenditures on different ambulatory services for the management of back and neck conditions.

STUDY DESIGN: Serial, cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of noninstitutionalized US adults. OBJECTIVE: To examine expenditures on common ambulatory health services for the management of back and neck conditions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although it is well recognized that national costs associated with back and neck conditions have grown considerably in recent years, little is known about the costs of care for specific ambulatory health services that are used to manage this population. METHODS: We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to examine adult (aged 18 yr or older) respondents from 1999 to 2008 who sought ambulatory health services for the management of back and neck conditions. We used complex survey design methods to make national estimates of mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on medical care, chiropractic care, and physical therapy per user for back and neck conditions. RESULTS: Approximately 6% of US adults reported an ambulatory visit for a primary diagnosis of a back or neck condition (13.6 million in 2008). Between 1999 and 2008, the mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on medical care for these patients increased by 95% (from $487 to $950); most of the increase was accounted for by increased costs for medical specialists, as opposed to primary care physicians. During the study period, the mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on chiropractic care were relatively stable; although physical therapy was the most costly service overall, in recent years those costs have contracted. CONCLUSION: Although this study did not explore the relative effectiveness of different ambulatory services, recent increasing costs associated with providing medical care for back and neck conditions (particularly subspecialty care) are contributing to the growing economic burden of managing these conditions.

Treatment of the adverse effects from acupuncture and their economic impact: a prospective study in 73,406 patients with low back or neck pain.

The aim was to investigate the frequency of adverse effects due to acupuncture treatment, the need for treatment and the costs in patients with chronic low back or neck pain. This prospective observational study included patients who received acupuncture for chronic low back pain or chronic neck pain. After treatment all patients documented adverse events associated with acupuncture (defined as adverse effects) and provided details e.g. on treatment. Cost data was provided by the health insurance companies. We used a societal perspective including direct health care costs related to the acupuncture and the indirect costs caused through lost workdays. From 73,406 patients, 5440 patients (7.4% [95% CI 7.2%; 7.6%] reported experiencing at least one adverse effect and 1422 patients (1.9% [1.8%; 2.0%]) required treatment. The subsequent treatments reported were either self-treatment (1.2% [1.09%; 1.25%]), treatment with medication and/or by a physician (0.6% [0.57%; 0.68%]), or treatment in a hospital (0.03% [0.02%; 0.04%]). Patients reporting adverse effects that required treatment had higher costs compared to patients without adverse effects (at 3months €1265 [1179; 1351] vs. €1140 [1128; 1153] and at 12months € 3534 [3256; 3812] vs. € 3249 [3209; 3289]. The difference was caused through the expense of visiting physicians and higher indirect costs (difference at 3months: €125 [38; 211], p=0.005 and at 12months: €285 [4; 566], p=0.047). Adverse effects from acupuncture occur in about 7% of patients and were mainly treated by themselves. When these effects needed treatment by a health professional additional expenses were the consequence.

The effectiveness and cost-evaluation of manual therapy and physical therapy in patients with sub-acute and chronic non specific neck pain. Rationale and design of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Manual Therapy applied to patients with non specific neck pain has been investigated several times. In the Netherlands, manual therapy as applied according to the Utrecht School of Manual Therapy (MTU) has not been the subject of a randomized controlled trial. MTU differs in diagnoses and treatment from other forms of manual therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single blind randomized controlled trial in patients with sub-acute and chronic non specific neck pain. Patients with neck complaints existing for two weeks (minimum) till one year (maximum) will participate in the trial. 180 participants will be recruited in thirteen primary health care centres in the Netherlands.The experimental group will be treated with MTU during a six week period. The control group will be treated with physical therapy (standard care, mainly active exercise therapy), also for a period of six weeks.Primary outcomes are Global Perceived Effect (GPE) and functional status (Neck Disability Index (NDI-DV)). Secondary outcomes are neck pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)), Eurocol, costs and quality of life (SF36). DISCUSSION: This paper presents details on the rationale of MTU, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

[Are SPA therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy effective for chronic neck pain? Randomised clinical trial. Second part: medicoeconomic approach]. / Y a-t-il un effet des soins thermaux et des champs électromagnétiques pulsés sur la cervicalgie chronique? Essai clinique randomisé. Deuxième partie: approche médicoéconomique.

UNLABELLED: We report the results of a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy and spa therapy (ST) versus usual care (control) for chronic neck pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age 18 to 80 years with pain in the neck area of more than 3 months' duration and no contraindications for PEMF therapy and ST. Randomization to the ST (n=25) and PEMF groups (n=26) was blinded, as was collection of data. Non-included subjects (n=29) underwent usual care. The trial respected the Helsinki declaration, and informed consent was obtained from subjects. The analysis was intent to treat; the main outcome measure was increase in health dimension scores on the MOS SF-36 in terms of increase in French health care costs from 6 months preceding to 6 months after the start of the study. RESULTS: The increase in health care costs was less for the PEMF group (+68 euro+/-539 [95% confidence interval (CI)]: -145.0+281) than the ST and control groups. The increase tended to be less, but not significantly, for the ST group (+373+/-938 euro [95% CI, -14.0+76.0]) than for controls (+618+/-2715 euro [95% CI, -434.0+167.0]). The gain of one physical MOS SF-36 unit during one year cost 3400 euro [95% CI, -6759+13 100] for the PEMF group, 29,000 euro [95% CI, -1093+59 375] for the ST group and 95076 euro [95% CI, -66 769+256 923] for the control group, but the differences were not significant. COMMENTARY: These results suggest a potential cost-effectiveness for ST and particularly PEMF as compared to usual care in chronic cervical pain. Our results perhaps lack significance probably because of lack of statistical power and do not distinguish costs related or not to chronic cervical pain.