Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repositorio.usj.es/handle/123456789/759

Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFernandez-Sanchis, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorBrandín de la Cruz, Natalia-
dc.contributor.authorJiménez Sánchez, Carolina-
dc.contributor.authorGil-Calvo, Marina-
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-25T11:58:12Z-
dc.date.available2022-03-25T11:58:12Z-
dc.date.issued2022-01-14-
dc.identifier.citationFernández-Sanchis, D.; Brandín-de la Cruz, N.; Jiménez-Sánchez, C.; Gil-Calvo, M.; Herrero, P.; Calvo, S. Cost-Effectiveness of Upper Extremity Dry Needling in Chronic Stroke. Healthcare 2022, 10, 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010160es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2227-9032es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.usj.es/handle/123456789/759-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Dry needling is a non-pharmacological approach that has proven to be effective in different neurological conditions. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single dry needling session in patients with chronic stroke. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on a randomized controlled clinical trial. The results obtained from the values of the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale were processed in order to obtain the percentage of treatment responders and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each alternative. The cost analysis was that of the hospital, clinic, or health center, including the equipment and physiotherapist. The cost per respondent and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each alternative were assessed. Results: Twenty-three patients with stroke were selected. The cost of DN treatment was EUR 14.96, and the data analysis showed a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of both EUR/QALY and EUR/responder for IG, although the sensitivity analysis using limit values did not confirm the dominance (higher effectiveness with les cost) of the dry needling over the sham dry needling. Conclusions: Dry needling is an affordable alternative with good results in the cost-effectiveness analysis—both immediately, and after two weeks of treatment—compared to sham dry needling in persons with chronic strokees_ES
dc.format.extent11 p.es_ES
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectCost–utilityes_ES
dc.subjectStrokees_ES
dc.subjectUpper extremityes_ES
dc.subjectEQ-5Des_ES
dc.titleCost-Effectiveness of Upper Extremity Dry Needling in Chronic Strokees_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010160es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
Appears in Collections:Artículos de revistas

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Cost-Effectiveness of Upper Extremity Dry Needling in Chronic Stroke.pdf14,41 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons