FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2969950220> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2969950220 endingPage "645" @default.
• W2969950220 startingPage "639" @default.
• W2969950220 abstract "Objective Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. Materials and Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. Conclusions From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective. Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective." @default.
• W2969950220 created "2019-08-29" @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5006098774 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5006748782 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5015458037 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5018105389 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5018714639 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5034715277 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5051483662 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5059211149 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5059591044 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5063064800 @default.
• W2969950220 creator A5080490782 @default.
• W2969950220 date "2020-07-01" @default.
• W2969950220 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2969950220 title "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients" @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1502014297 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1510944958 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1517464831 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1519259969 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1580631164 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1669613044 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1868117632 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1909087413 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1970453192 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1982564323 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1982748869 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W1999855422 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2016484056 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2039402409 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2080695389 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2087428983 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2090174301 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2099116943 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2108344016 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2125208830 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2145062922 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2159949317 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2167730769 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2293170720 @default.
• W2969950220 cites W2604029046 @default.
• W2969950220 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.13032" @default.
• W2969950220 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31423686" @default.
• W2969950220 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W2969950220 type Work @default.
• W2969950220 sameAs 2969950220 @default.
• W2969950220 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2969950220 countsByYear W29699502202021 @default.
• W2969950220 countsByYear W29699502202023 @default.
• W2969950220 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5006098774 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5006748782 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5015458037 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5018105389 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5018714639 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5034715277 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5051483662 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5059211149 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5059591044 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5063064800 @default.
• W2969950220 hasAuthorship W2969950220A5080490782 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C24998067 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C2780907711 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C2984781990 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C3018636122 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C112930515 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C126322002 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C141071460 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C142724271 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C168563851 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C1862650 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C204787440 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C24998067 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C2780907711 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C2984781990 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C3018636122 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C3019080777 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C42219234 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C535046627 @default.
• W2969950220 hasConceptScore W2969950220C71924100 @default.
• W2969950220 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2969950220 hasLocation W29699502201 @default.
• W2969950220 hasLocation W29699502202 @default.
• W2969950220 hasOpenAccess W2969950220 @default.
• W2969950220 hasPrimaryLocation W29699502201 @default.
• W2969950220 hasRelatedWork W1527114584 @default.
• W2969950220 hasRelatedWork W1999855422 @default.

• next