TY - JOUR T1 - Cost effectiveness of brace, physiotherapy, or both for treatment of tennis elbow JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine JO - Br J Sports Med SP - 637 LP - 643 DO - 10.1136/bjsm.2006.026187 VL - 40 IS - 7 AU - P A A Struijs AU - I B C Korthals-de Bos AU - M W van Tulder AU - C N van Dijk AU - L M Bouter AU - W J J Assendelft Y1 - 2006/07/01 UR - http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/7/637.abstract N2 - Background: The annual incidence of tennis elbow in the general population is high (1–3%). Tennis elbow often leads to limitation of activities of daily living and work absenteeism. Physiotherapy and braces are the most common treatments. Objectives: The hypothesis of the trial was that no difference exists in the cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, braces, and a combination of the two for treatment of tennis elbow. Methods: The trial was designed as a randomised controlled trial with intention to treat analysis. A total of 180 patients with tennis elbow were randomised to brace only (n  =  68), physiotherapy (n  =  56), or a combination of the two (n  =  56). Outcome measures were success rate, severity of complaints, pain, functional disability, and quality of life. Follow up was at six, 26, and 52 weeks. Direct healthcare and non-healthcare costs and indirect costs were measured. Mean cost differences over 12 months were evaluated by applying non-parametric bootstrap techniques. Results: No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Success rate at 12 months was 89% in the physiotherapy group, 86% in the brace group, and 87% in the combination group. Mean total costs per patient were €2069 in the brace only group, €978 in the physiotherapy group, and €1256 in the combination group. The mean difference in total costs between the physiotherapy and brace group was substantial (€1005), although not significant. Cost effectiveness ratios and cost utility ratios showed physiotherapy to be the most cost effective, although this also was not statistically significant. Conclusion: No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences in costs were identified between the three strategies. ER -