Complete Economic Evaluation Publications for Acupuncture
Author(s)
Silvia Guzmán Vázquez, MsC1, Herman Soto, Sr., MSc2, Moises Salvador Castañeda Ramirez, MsC3, JOSE FEDERICO RIVAS VILCHIS, Dr3;
1AMETESA, Clinical research, Iztapalapa, Mexico, 2HS Estudios Farmacoeconomicos, General Director, Mexico, Mexico, 3Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Acupuncture, Mexico, Mexico
1AMETESA, Clinical research, Iztapalapa, Mexico, 2HS Estudios Farmacoeconomicos, General Director, Mexico, Mexico, 3Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Acupuncture, Mexico, Mexico
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of complete economic evaluations to analyze the evidence regarding clinical the use of acupuncture as a therapeutic alternative.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search in several major databases including Medline ( PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, Imbiomed, Medigraphic and National Health Service Economics Evaluation Database, for articles from 2000 to December 2024. We use MESH terms including "economic evaluations"[All Fields] and related designs terms. The search was limited to the english or spanish language and human research. Experts in acupuncture (R & M) classified papers by clinic use, and pharmacoeconomic expert (HS) identify the economic design. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted including trend over time.
RESULTS: We identified 2,140 publications, and excluded 293 duplicates. A total of 90 studies met the criteria for inclusion as complete economic evaluations. Three articles were identified from Mexico. One of these articles was not available in extenso, and only one of the economic evaluations was available. The most prevalent diagnosis evaluated was musculoskeletal pain, accounting for 63%, gynecologic related health problems ranking second. The overwhelming majority of articles were cost-effectiveness analyses, amounting to 96%. The period with the highest number of publications identified was 2010-2015 with 28 and the lowest production period was 2000-2005 with 5 papers. We identified the use of meta-analyses of economic evaluations with potential aspects of bias in the sources utilized, such as the lack of subgroup analyses, the absence of rationale for selecting the perspective, and the lack of justification for the model used. We did not identify evaluations with cost-minimization design.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified limited evidence focused in pain treatment, with several technical and institutional limitations for economic evaluations. Health economics evidence can play a pivotal role in healthcare decisions regarding resource allocation for patients.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search in several major databases including Medline ( PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, Imbiomed, Medigraphic and National Health Service Economics Evaluation Database, for articles from 2000 to December 2024. We use MESH terms including "economic evaluations"[All Fields] and related designs terms. The search was limited to the english or spanish language and human research. Experts in acupuncture (R & M) classified papers by clinic use, and pharmacoeconomic expert (HS) identify the economic design. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted including trend over time.
RESULTS: We identified 2,140 publications, and excluded 293 duplicates. A total of 90 studies met the criteria for inclusion as complete economic evaluations. Three articles were identified from Mexico. One of these articles was not available in extenso, and only one of the economic evaluations was available. The most prevalent diagnosis evaluated was musculoskeletal pain, accounting for 63%, gynecologic related health problems ranking second. The overwhelming majority of articles were cost-effectiveness analyses, amounting to 96%. The period with the highest number of publications identified was 2010-2015 with 28 and the lowest production period was 2000-2005 with 5 papers. We identified the use of meta-analyses of economic evaluations with potential aspects of bias in the sources utilized, such as the lack of subgroup analyses, the absence of rationale for selecting the perspective, and the lack of justification for the model used. We did not identify evaluations with cost-minimization design.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified limited evidence focused in pain treatment, with several technical and institutional limitations for economic evaluations. Health economics evidence can play a pivotal role in healthcare decisions regarding resource allocation for patients.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE92
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal), STA: Alternative Medicine