Scholarlink

Purposeof Review <p>The provision of a review of current literature on the cost-effectiveness of employing SCS in the treatment of CRPS.</p> Recent Findings <p>Four studies were included in this review, with authorship in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Each study individually supported the cost-effectiveness of SCS in the treatment of CRPS, with the incremental cost of one quality-adjusted life year found to be AUD 2,321 – USD 22,084, all below a willingness to pay estimated at USD 50,000. One of the four studies was rated American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Grade II, three of the four studies were rated AAN Grade III, and an overall Class C evaluation was assigned to this evidence.</p> Summary <p>SCS can be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with CRPS when considering a time horizon of at least ten years. Current evidence, however, remains weak and less invasive options remain first-line.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

SCS for CRPS: A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月21日

查看全文
  • Daniel R. Briggi,
  • James Reilly,
  • Josiel Garcia,
  • Wyatt Kupperman

摘要

Purposeof Review

The provision of a review of current literature on the cost-effectiveness of employing SCS in the treatment of CRPS.

Recent Findings

Four studies were included in this review, with authorship in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Each study individually supported the cost-effectiveness of SCS in the treatment of CRPS, with the incremental cost of one quality-adjusted life year found to be AUD 2,321 – USD 22,084, all below a willingness to pay estimated at USD 50,000. One of the four studies was rated American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Grade II, three of the four studies were rated AAN Grade III, and an overall Class C evaluation was assigned to this evidence.

Summary

SCS can be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with CRPS when considering a time horizon of at least ten years. Current evidence, however, remains weak and less invasive options remain first-line.