MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403041922 · doi:10.1080/03009742.2024.2392360

Cost–utility analysis of longstanding exercise therapy versus usual care in people with rheumatoid arthritis and severe functional limitations

2024· article· en· W4403041922 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Teuwen, SFE van Weely, C.H.M. van den Ende, MAT van Wissen, T. P. M. Vliet Vlieland, W.F. Peter, Alfons A den Broeder, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg, Maaike G. J. Gademan, Wilbert B. van den Hout

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Rheumatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKoninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor FysiotherapieZonMwMinisterie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en SportArthritis SocietyReumaNederlandDutch Arthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisPhysical therapyExercise therapyIntensive care medicineArthritisInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of longstanding personalized exercise therapy compared with usual care in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and severe functional disability. METHOD: In this cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled trial (n = 215), with 1 year follow-up, the study population comprised individuals with RA and reported severe difficulties in performing basic daily activities. Assessments were at baseline, 12, 26, and 52 weeks, with measurements of costs including medical and non-medical costs as recorded by patients and healthcare providers. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). Costs and QALY differences were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The 1 year societal costs were non-significantly in favour of the usual care group, with a small difference of €180 [95% confidence interval (CI) €-4493 to €4852]. The QALYs were non-significantly in favour of the intervention group, by 0.02 according to the EQ-5D-5L (95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and by 0.04 according to the EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.00 to 0.08). For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50 000 per QALY, the intervention was the cost-effective strategy with 60% certainty. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation showed no clear economic preference for either group, as the intervention costs were higher in the intervention group, but partly compensated by other cost savings and improved QALYs. Despite severe RA, patients had better clinical outcomes compared with usual care, suggesting no economic reasons to refrain from exercise therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NL8235, included in the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL8235).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of RheumatologySame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207