BMJ  2004;329:1381 (11 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE (published 19 November 2004)

Primary care

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of adding spinal manipulation, exercise classes, or manipulation followed by exercise ("combined treatment") to "best care" in general practice for patients consulting with low back pain.

Design Stochastic cost utility analysis alongside pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.

Setting 181 general practices and 63 community settings for physical treatments around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.

Participants 1287 (96%) of 1334 trial participants.

Main outcome measures Healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY over 12 months.

Results Over one year, mean treatment costs relative to "best care" were £195 ($360; 279; 95% credibility interval £85 to £308) for manipulation, £140 (£3 to £278) for exercise, and £125 (£21 to £228) for combined treatment. All three active treatments increased participants' average QALYs compared with best care alone. Each extra QALY that combined treatment yielded relative to best care cost £3800; in economic terms it had an "incremental cost effectiveness ratio" of £3800. Manipulation alone had a ratio of £8700 relative to combined treatment. If the NHS was prepared to pay at least £10 000 for each extra QALY (lower than previous recommendations in the United Kingdom), manipulation alone would probably be the best strategy. If manipulation was not available, exercise would have an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £8300 relative to best care.

Conclusions Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to "best care" for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost effectiveness analysis

J Ratcliffe, K J Thomas, H MacPherson, and J Brazier
BMJ 2006 333: 626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Acupressure for low back pain

Helen Frost and Sarah Stewart-Brown
BMJ 2006 332: 680-681. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Cost effectiveness of complementary treatments in the United Kingdom: systematic review

Peter H Canter, Joanna Thompson Coon, and Edzard Ernst
BMJ 2005 331: 880-881. [Full Text] [PDF]

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial: Is manipulation the most cost effective addition to "best care"?

Torill H Tveito and Hege R Eriksen
BMJ 2005 330: 674. [Extract] [Full Text]

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial: Manipulation alone costs more than other options so why is it recommended?

Timothy R Church
BMJ 2005 330: 674. [Extract] [Full Text]

Spinal manipulation gives value for money
BMJ 2004 329: 0. [Full Text]

Public health's Holy Grail

Kamran Abbasi
BMJ 2004 329: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Manca, A., Dumville, J. C., Torgerson, D. J., Klaber Moffett, J. A., Mooney, M. P., Jackson, D. A., Eaton, S. (2007). Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care back and neck pain patients: cost effectiveness analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46: 1495-1501 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Underwood, M. R., Morton, V., Farrin, A., on behalf of the UK BEAM trial team, (2007). Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset [ISRCTN32683578]. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46: 1297-1302 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Groot Koerkamp, B., Hunink, M.G. M., Stijnen, T., Hammitt, J. K., Kuntz, K. M., Weinstein, M. C. (2007). Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Med Decis Making 27: 101-111 [Abstract]  
• Canter, P. H., Coon, J. T., Ernst, E. (2006). Cost-Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in the United Kingdom--A Systematic Review{dagger}. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 3: 425-432 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ratcliffe, J, Thomas, K J, MacPherson, H, Brazier, J (2006). A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 333: 626- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lewis, B J, Carruthers, G (2006). Systematic review of spinal manipulation: A biased report.. JRSM 99: 278-278 [Full text]  
• Underwood, M. R., Harding, G., Klaber Moffett, J., in collaboration with the UK BEAM trial team, (2006). Patient perceptions of physical therapy within a trial for back pain treatments (UK BEAM) [ISRCTN32683578]. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 751-756 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Frost, H., Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). Acupressure for low back pain.. BMJ 332: 680-681 [Full text]  
• Canter, P. H, Coon, J. T., Ernst, E. (2005). Cost effectiveness of complementary treatments in the United Kingdom: systematic review. BMJ 331: 880-881 [Full text]  
• (2005). Cost of manipulation is bearable for back pain. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1117-1117 [Full text]  
• Tveito, T. H, Eriksen, H. R (2005). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial: Is manipulation the most cost effective addition to "best care"?. BMJ 330: 674-674 [Full text]  
• Church, T. R (2005). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial: Manipulation alone costs more than other options so why is it recommended?. BMJ 330: 674-674 [Full text]  
• Harvey, N., Cooper, C. (2005). Physiotherapy for neck and back pain. BMJ 330: 53-54 [Full text]  
• UK BEAM Trial Team, (2004). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 329: 1377- [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Exercise in classes, or classes of exercises?

Regina B Stroebele
bmj.com, 21 Nov 2004 [Full text]

Cost-effectiveness

Timothy R. Church
bmj.com, 10 Dec 2004 [Full text]