Dataset Information

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies.

Methods

Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC).

Results

70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6).

Conclusions

The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared 'natural history', enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design.

SUBMITTER: Artus M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4007531 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Artus Majid M van der Windt Danielle D Jordan Kelvin P KP Croft Peter R PR

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20140307

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and ...[more]

PMID: 24607083

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesProspective observational studies (OSs) that collect adequate information about confounders can validly assess treatment consequences. However, what constitutes adequate information is unknown. This study investigated whether the extensive information collected by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in two OSs and two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was adequate.DesignSecondary analysis of WHI data. Cox regression was used to select from all baseline risk factors those that best predicted outcome. Cox regression that included these risk factors was used for two types of analyses: (1) comparing RCT and OS assessments of the effects of hormone therapy on outcome for participants with specific characteristics and (2) evaluating whether adjustment for measured confounders could eliminate outcome differences among datasets.SettingThe WHI included more than 800 baseline risk factors and outcomes during a median follow-up of 8 years.Participants151 870 postmenopausal women ages 50-79.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMyocardial infarction and stroke.ResultsRCT and OS results differed for the association of hormone therapy with outcome after adjusting for confounding factors and stratifying on factors that were hypothesised to modulate the effects of hormone therapy (eg, age and time since menopause) or that empirically modulated the effects of hormone therapy in this dataset (eg, blood pressure, previous coronary revascularisation and private medical insurance). Some of the four WHI datasets had significantly worse outcomes than others even after adjusting for risk and stratifying by type of hormone therapy, for example, the risk-adjusted HR for myocardial infarction was 1.37 (p<0.0001) in an RCT placebo group compared with an OS group not taking hormone therapy.ConclusionsApparently the WHI did not collect sufficient information to give reliable assessments of treatment effects. If the WHI did not collect sufficient data, it is likely that few OSs collect sufficient information.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN:A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING:A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS:Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS:Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS:Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores. METHODS:We searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS:A total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (β-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (β-coefficient=-4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (β-coefficient=-29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media.

Project description:BackgroundRepresentativeness of antihypertensive drug trials is uncertain, as many trials recruit few or no older people. Some trials specifically recruit older participants to address this. Here, we assess the representativeness of trials focusing on older people by comparing the rates of serious adverse events in these trials with the rates in trials of a general adult population (ie, standard trials), and comparing these findings to the rate of hospitalisations and deaths in people with hypertension starting a similar treatment in routine clinical practice.MethodsFor this observational study, we identified randomised controlled trials (phase 2/3, 3, or 4) of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) drugs for hypertension registered from 1999 onwards with ClinicalTrials.gov. Serious adverse events are routinely included in trial reports and are predominantly accounted for by all-cause hospitalisations and deaths. We compared serious adverse event rates in older-people trials (minimum inclusion age ≥60 years) and standard trials (minimum inclusion age <60 years) using Poisson regression models adjusted for trial characteristics (drug type, comparison type, phase, and outcome type). We identified a community cohort of 56 036 adults with hypertension commencing similar drugs to obtain an expected rate of emergency or urgent hospitalisations or deaths, and compared this rate to observed serious adverse event rates in each trial, adjusted for age and sex. For standard trials and for older-people trials, we calculated the standardised ratio of the expected to the observed rate of serious adverse events using Poisson regression models.FindingsWe included 110 trials, of which 11 (10%) were older-people trials and 99 (90%) were standard trials. Older-people trials had a higher rate of serious adverse events than did standard trials (median events per person per year 0·18 [IQR 0·12-0·29] vs 0·11 [0·08-0·18]; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·76 [95% CI 1·01-3·03]). The hospitalisation and death rate in the community for those taking RAAS antihypertensives was much greater than the rate of serious adverse events reported in standard trials (standardised ratio [SR] 4·23, 95% CI 3·51-5·09) and older-people trials (4·76, 2·89-7·86), adjusting for age and sex. The magnitude of risk increase for serious adverse events in community patients taking RAAS did not differ when comparing older-people and standard trials (ratio of SRs 1·13, 95% CI 0·66-1·92).InterpretationTrials report substantially fewer serious adverse events than expected from rates of hospitalisations and deaths among similar-aged people receiving equivalent treatments in the community. Serious adverse event rates might be a useful metric to assess trial representativeness. Clinicians should be cautious when applying trial recommendations to older people, even when trials focus on older participants.FundingWellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.

Project description:A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.Clinical trials NCT00565942.

Dataset Information

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets