title: Manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care accelerates recovery of shoulder complaints at higher costs: economic outcomes of a randomized trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Shoulder complaints are common in primary care and have unfavourable long term prognosis. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of manipulative therapy of the cervicothoracic spine and the adjacent ribs in addition to usual medical care (UMC) by the general practitioner in the treatment of shoulder complaints.
  
  
  METHODS
  This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized trial in primary care. Included were 150 patients with shoulder complaints and a dysfunction of the cervicothoracic spine and adjacent ribs. Patients were treated with UMC (NSAID's, corticosteroid injection or referral to physical therapy) and were allocated at random (yes/no) to manipulative therapy (manipulation and mobilization). Patient perceived recovery, severity of main complaint, shoulder pain, disability and general health were outcome measures. Data about direct and indirect costs were collected by means of a cost diary.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Manipulative therapy as add-on to UMC accelerated recovery on all outcome measures included. At 26 weeks after randomization, both groups reported similar recovery rates (41% vs. 38%), but the difference between groups in improvement of severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain and disability sustained. Compared to the UMC group the total costs were higher in the manipulative group (€1167 vs. €555). This is explained mainly by the costs of the manipulative therapy itself and the higher costs due sick leave from work. The cost effectiveness ratio showed that additional manipulative treatment is more costly but also more effective than UMC alone. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that a 50%-probability of recovery with AMT within 6 months after initiation of treatment is achieved at €2876.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Manipulative therapy in addition to UMC accelerates recovery and is more effective than UMC alone on the long term, but is associated with higher costs. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL NUMBER REGISTER: ISRCTN11216.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Gert J D
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Bergman
authors.forename: Jan C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Winter
authors.forename: Maurits W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: van Tulder
authors.forename: Betty
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Meyboom-de Jong
authors.forename: Klaas
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Postema
authors.forename: Geert J M G
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: van der Heijden
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D017048:Health Care Costs / Q000639:trends*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D026201:Musculoskeletal Manipulations / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D011859:Radiography; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology; D020069:Shoulder Pain / Q000191:economics* / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Apr 26;326(7395):911
references.pmid: 12714472
references.citation: Stat Med. 1996 Jul 15;15(13):1447-58
references.pmid: 8841654
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Jul;53(7):688-95
references.pmid: 10941945
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 2002 Dec;11(6):455-68
references.pmid: 12516984
references.citation: Ann Rheum Dis. 1998 Feb;57(2):82-7
references.pmid: 9613336
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999 Mar-Apr;22(3):144-8
references.pmid: 10220712
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Sep;46(410):519-23
references.pmid: 8917870
references.citation: Scand J Rehabil Med. 1996 Sep;28(3):163-7
references.pmid: 8885039
references.citation: Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Feb;38(2):160-3
references.pmid: 10342630
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Jan;53(1):29-38
references.pmid: 10693901
references.citation: Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
references.pmid: 7827647
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1990 Jul-Sep;10(3):212-4
references.pmid: 2115096
references.citation: QJM. 1999 Mar;92(3):177-82
references.pmid: 10326078
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1191-4
references.pmid: 11323066
references.citation: Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 1999 Jun;13(2):287-309
references.pmid: 10952865
references.citation: Health Econ. 2000 Apr;9(3):227-34
references.pmid: 10790701
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(7):443-54
references.pmid: 12093300
references.citation: Scand J Rehabil Med. 1996 Dec;28(4):183-92
references.pmid: 9122645
references.citation: BMJ. 1998 Jul 11;317(7151):111-5
references.pmid: 9657785
references.citation: Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1995;32:107-12
references.pmid: 7784832
references.citation: Scand J Rehabil Med. 1997 Sep;29(3):167-74
references.pmid: 9271151
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Sep 21;141(6):432-9
references.pmid: 15381516
references.citation: Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
references.pmid: 9366889
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002 Nov-Dec;25(9):543-9
references.pmid: 12466771