Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy compared with information and advice in the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Filip Gedin, Martin Skeppholm, Kristina Burström, Vibeke Sparring, Mesfin Tessma, Niklas Zethraeus

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Low back pain is a global public health problem and a leading cause of disability all over the world. The lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 70–80% and a significant proportion of people affected develop chronic low back pain (CLBP). Besides a severe negative impact on people’s health and health-related quality of life, CLBP is associated with substantial costs for society. Medical costs for the management of CLBP and costs for production losses due to absenteeism from work are sizeable. Pharmaceuticals, physical activity, manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions are examples of widely used treatments for CLBP. However, the scientific basis to recommend the use of one treatment over another is limited and more research is needed to study the effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP in clinical practice.
The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness (back pain-related functional limitation, back pain intensity, general health, health-related quality of life, and working status), costs (medical costs and costs for production losses) and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy when added to information and advice in the treatment of patients with non-specific CLBP in Sweden.

Methods/design

This is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, where participants are recruited through six primary care rehabilitation units (PCRUs) in Stockholm County Council, Sweden. Individuals with non-specific CLBP are individually randomised to one of four treatment groups: ‘information and advice’; ‘physiotherapy, and information and advice’; ‘chiropractic care, and information and advice’; or ‘chiropractic care, physiotherapy, and information and advice’. A sample size of 600 participants will be recruited during a period of 33 months. A computer-based questionnaire is used to collect data on back pain-related functional limitation (Oswestry Disability Index), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), general health (self-rated health), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and working status (measured as percentage of full-time work). Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline.

Discussion

The results from our study should be considered when producing evidence-based guidelines and recommendations on which treatment strategies to use for CLBP.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN15830360. Registered prospectively on 2 February 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, Abdalla S, Aboyans V, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010. a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380(9859):2163–96.CrossRef
2.
Ekman M, Johnell O, Lidgren L. The economic cost of low back pain in Sweden in 2001. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(2):275–84.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hubertsson J, Englund M, Hallgarde U, Lidwall U, Lofvendahl S, Petersson IF. Sick leave patterns in common musculoskeletal disorders—a study of doctor prescribed sick leave. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):482–91.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ekman M, Jonhagen S, Hunsche E, Jonsson L. Burden of illness of chronic low back pain in Sweden. a cross-sectional, retrospective study in primary care setting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(15):1777–85.CrossRef
7.
Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. Acute neck and back pain: preventive interventions. Stockholm; 2016.
8.
Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. Rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain conditions. Stockholm; 2010.
9.
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, van Tulder MW. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h444.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(13):825–46.CrossRef
11.
Saragiotto BT, Maher CG, Yamato TP, Costa LO, Menezes Costa LC, Ostelo RW, Macedo LG. Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:Cd012004.
12.
Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(17):1875–83.CrossRef
13.
Niemisto L, Lahtinen-Suopanki T, Rissanen P, Lindgren KA, Sarna S, Hurri H. A randomized trial of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(19):2185–91.CrossRef
14.
Niemisto L, Rissanen P, Sarna S, Lahtinen-Suopanki T, Lindgren KA, Hurri H. Cost-effectiveness of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(10):1109–15.CrossRef
15.
UKBEAM. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329(7479):1381.CrossRef
16.
Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. Multimodal rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Stockholm; 2015.
17.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
18.
Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
19.
Johannesson M. Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Dev Health Econ Public Policy. 1996;4:1–245.PubMed
20.
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
21.
The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Stockholm; 2003.
22.
Haas M, De Abreu Lourenco R. Pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain: a review of cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(6):561–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161–72.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Lothgren M, Tambour M. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(1):39–48.CrossRefPubMed
25.
National Board of Health and Welfare. The National guidelines for Musculoskeletal Diseases. Stockholm; 2012.
26.
Försäkringskassan. What is the costs for various diseases in health insurance? Stockholm; 2011.
27.
Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J. 2010;10(6):514–29.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Jensen I. Back book. A book for those who have backache: based on the latest medical evidence on back pain. Stockholm: Libris; 2004.
30.
Fairbank J, Pynsent P. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2940–52.CrossRef
31.
Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Bransford RJ, DeVine J, McGirt MJ, Lee MJ. Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21 Suppl):54–68.CrossRef
32.
Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LA, Zethraeus N. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Rabin R, Charro F. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2009;33(5):337–43.CrossRef
34.
35.
Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(7):798–804.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):1000–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Stockholm County Council. Price list for care choice primary health care rehabilitation. Stockholm; 2017.
38.
39.
Södra Regionsnämnden. Regional pricing and reimbursement in southern regional health care. Södra Regionvårdsnämnden; 2016.
40.
Almbrand B, Johannesson M, Sjostrand B, Malmberg K, Ryden L. Cost-effectiveness of intense insulin treatment after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus; results from the DIGAMI study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21(9):733–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Statistics Sweden. Average salary and salary dispersion by sector, occupation (SSYK 2012) and sex. Years 2014–2015: Statistics Sweden; 2016.
42.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(3):332–42.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):117–22.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8–24.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):12–20.PubMed
47.
Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied longitudinal analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.
48.
Farrar JT, Young Jr JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–58.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Smedslund G, Zangi HA, Mowinckel P, Hagen KB. Two to five repeated measurements per patient reduced the required sample size considerably in a randomized clinical trial for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Machin D, Campbell M, Walters S. Medical statistics. Chichester: Wiley; 2007.
51.
Lothgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000;9(7):623–30.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy compared with information and advice in the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Filip Gedin
Martin Skeppholm
Kristina Burström
Vibeke Sparring
Mesfin Tessma
Niklas Zethraeus
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2351-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Abiraterone acetate plus LHRH therapy versus abiraterone acetate while sparing LHRH therapy in patients with progressive, metastatic and chemotherapy-naïve, castration-resistant prostate cancer (SPARE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Review

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa

Study protocol

A randomized phase II study to assess the effect of adjuvant immunotherapy using α-GalCer-pulsed dendritic cells in the patients with completely resected stage II–IIIA non-small cell lung cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Review

Barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials within all disease areas

Study protocol

TIGA-CUB – manualised psychoanalytic child psychotherapy versus treatment as usual for children aged 5–11 years with treatment-resistant conduct disorders and their primary carers: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Methodology

A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials