IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0135460.html

An Economic Evaluation of TENS in Addition to Usual Primary Care Management for the Treatment of Tennis Elbow: Results from the TATE Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Martyn Lewis
  • Linda S Chesterton
  • Julius Sim
  • Christian D Mallen
  • Elaine M Hay
  • Daniëlle A van der Windt

Abstract

Background: The TATE trial was a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial of supplementing primary care management (PCM)–consisting of a GP consultation followed by information and advice on exercises–with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), to reduce pain intensity in patients with tennis elbow. This paper reports the health economic evaluation. Methods and Findings: Adults with new diagnosis of tennis elbow were recruited from 38 general practices in the UK, and randomly allocated to PCM (n = 120) or PCM plus TENS (n = 121). Outcomes included reduction in pain intensity and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) based on the EQ5D and SF6D. Two economic perspectives were evaluated: (i) healthcare–inclusive of NHS and private health costs for the tennis elbow; (ii) societal–healthcare costs plus productivity losses through work absenteeism. Mean outcome and cost differences between the groups were evaluated using a multiple imputed dataset as the base case evaluation, with uncertainty represented in cost-effectiveness planes and through probabilistic cost-effectiveness acceptability curves). Incremental healthcare cost was £33 (95%CI -40, 106) and societal cost £65 (95%CI -307, 176) for PCM plus TENS. Mean differences in outcome were: 0.11 (95%CI -0.13, 0.35) for change in pain (0–10 pain scale); -0.015 (95%CI -0.058, 0.029) for QALYEQ5D; 0.007 (95%CI -0.022, 0.035) for QALYSF6D (higher score differences denote greater benefit for PCM plus TENS). The ICER (incremental cost effectiveness ratio) for the main evaluation of mean difference in societal cost (£) relative to mean difference in pain outcome was -582 (95%CI -8666, 8113). However, incremental ICERs show differences in cost–effectiveness of additional TENS, according to the outcome being evaluated. Conclusion: Our findings do not provide evidence for or against the cost-effectiveness of TENS as an adjunct to primary care management of tennis elbow.

Suggested Citation

  • Martyn Lewis & Linda S Chesterton & Julius Sim & Christian D Mallen & Elaine M Hay & Daniëlle A van der Windt, 2015. "An Economic Evaluation of TENS in Addition to Usual Primary Care Management for the Treatment of Tennis Elbow: Results from the TATE Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135460
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135460
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135460&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0135460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    2. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    3. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1996. "The time trade‐off method: Results from a general population study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 141-154, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huang, Li & Frijters, Paul & Dalziel, Kim & Clarke, Philip, 2018. "Life satisfaction, QALYs, and the monetary value of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 131-136.
    2. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 437-443, October.
    3. G. Koning & E. Adang & P. Stalmeier & F. Keus & P. Vriens & C. Laarhoven, 2013. "TIPP and Lichtenstein modalities for inguinal hernia repair: a cost minimisation analysis alongside a randomised trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1027-1034, December.
    4. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    5. Ryan J. Drew & Philip J. Morgan & Frances Kay-Lambkin & Clare E. Collins & Robin Callister & Brian J. Kelly & Vibeke Hansen & Myles D. Young, 2021. "Men’s Perceptions of a Gender-Tailored eHealth Program Targeting Physical and Mental Health: Qualitative Findings from the SHED-IT Recharge Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Akyol, Pelin & Nolan, Matt, 2025. "Effects of informal caring on labour market outcomes of carers: Evidence from HILDA," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    8. Majmudar, Ishani Kartik & Mihalopoulos, Cathy & Abimanyi-Ochom, Julie & Mohebbi, Mohammadreza & Engel, Lidia, 2024. "The association between loneliness with health service use and quality of life among informal carers in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    9. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    11. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    12. Natalia Hernández-Segura & Alba Marcos-Delgado & Arrate Pinto-Carral & Tania Fernández-Villa & Antonio J. Molina, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Instruments and Mobility: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Clarke, Philip & Erreygers, Guido, 2020. "Defining and measuring health poverty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    14. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    15. Mohsen Joshanloo, 2026. "Social Capital vs. Financial Capital as Predictors of Future Subjective Well-being: A 22-Year Within-person Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 1-23, January.
    16. Christian M. Stach & Victor S. Sloan & Thasia G. Woodworth & Brian Kilgallen & Daniel E. Furst, 2019. "Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC): An Update Reflecting Real-World Use," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1499-1506, December.
    17. Sjöberg Tala, Camilo Alejandro (M.D.), 2025. "ECLIPSE v2.0: A Systematic Falsification Framework with Quantitative Integrity Metrics," MetaArXiv z3fke_v1, Center for Open Science.
    18. Stephanie O. Sangalang & Shelley Anne J. Medina & Zheina J. Ottong & Allen Lemuel G. Lemence & Donrey Totanes & John Cedrick Valencia & Patricia Andrea A. Singson & Mikaela Olaguera & Nelissa O. Prado, 2020. "Protocol for a Trial Assessing the Impacts of School-Based WaSH Interventions on Children’s Health Literacy, Handwashing, and Nutrition Status in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Chunhu Shi & Jinhui Tian & Dan Ren & Hongli Wei & Lihuan Zhang & Quan Wang & Kehu Yang, 2014. "Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    20. Miguel A. Garcia-Gordillo & Daniel Collado-Mateo & Pedro R. Olivares & José C. Adsuar, 2018. "Chilean population norms derived from the health-related quality of Life SF-6D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 675-686, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.