Completeness of Outcomes Description Reported in Low Back Pain Rehabilitation Interventions: A Survey of 185 Randomized Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gianola S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5125456 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Amongst several barriers to the application of quality clinical evidence and clinical guidelines into routine daily practice, poor description of interventions reported in clinical trials has received less attention. Although some studies have investigated the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomized trials, studies that exclusively analyzed physical therapy interventions reported in published trials are scarce.To evaluate the quality of descriptions of interventions in both experimental and control groups in randomized controlled trials published in four core physical therapy journals.We included all randomized controlled trials published from the Physical Therapy Journal, Journal of Physiotherapy, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation between June 2012 and December 2013. Each randomized controlled trial (RCT) was analyzed and coded for description of interventions using the checklist developed by Schroter et al.Out of 100 RCTs selected, only 35 RCTs (35%) fully described the interventions in both the intervention and control groups. Control group interventions were poorly described in the remaining RCTs (65%).Interventions, especially in the control group, are poorly described in the clinical trials published in leading physical therapy journals. A complete description of the intervention in a published report is crucial for physical therapists to be able to use the intervention in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5537478 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAn observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes.MethodsWe searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as "statistically significant and clinically relevant", "statistically significant but not clinically relevant", "not statistically significant but clinically relevant", and "not statistically significant and not clinically relevant". Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power.ResultsFrom 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error).ConclusionOnly a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.
| S-EPMC6647152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical in developing new therapeutic approaches. Historically, in plastic surgery, RCTs are uncommon as they make up less than 2% of all publications. However there has recently been an increase in RCTs appearing in plastic surgery but the quality of these articles has yet to be assessed. We aim to determine the completeness of intervention reporting in plastic surgery RCTs using the TIDieR checklist.MethodsA search of Pubmed for RCTs published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals as determined by the Google h5-index will be performed by two investigators. All identified articles will be isolated and a random selection of 300 articles will be screened for inclusion in the study by two different investigators. All types of RCTs will be included in this study. Articles will be excluded if they are nonrandomized, observational, follow-up studies, or secondary analyses. Full exclusion criteria can be found within this protocol. Extracted data includes all 12 points of the TIDieR checklist, journal, intervention type, sample size, and funding source. A complete list of what data will be extracted is listed within this protocol. All data extraction will be performed by two independent investigators. All work will be verified by the two investigators and any discrepancies will be resolved via consensus between investigators or with third party adjudication.DisseminationWe plan to publish this review in a peer-reviewed journal. We may also present this review at local and/or national conferences.
| S-EPMC6997583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (? 18 years) population with chronic (? 12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC3036018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To justify and describe an integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain prior to evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.Method:The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was used as a structural framework for the description of the integrated rehabilitation programme. As a part of the description, the Medical Research Council guidance, 'Developing and evaluating complex interventions', was used as a framework to justify the integrated rehabilitation programme.Intervention description:The integrated rehabilitation programme adopts a participatory biopsychosocial approach integrating inpatient activities supported by a multidisciplinary team and learning located within the patient's own environment. The integrated rehabilitation programme comprises 3 weeks of inpatient stay and 11 weeks of home-based activities. The inpatient part of the programme consists of 38 clinical activities, some of them delivered more than once. The 38 clinical activities were described in an activity sheet developed for this purpose, combining five items from the TIDieR.Conclusion:An integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain has been justified and described. The intervention description is currently being used for successful structuring and standardization of the content and delivery of the integrated rehabilitation programme in a randomized controlled trial.Trail registration:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02884466.
| S-EPMC6204649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic literature review of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsA total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months.Main outcome measuresPain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments.ResultsTen trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments.ConclusionsThe reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.
| S-EPMC33389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.
| S-EPMC3503701 | biostudies-other
Project description:Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a promising approach to achieving sufficient statistical power to identify sub-groups. We created a repository of IPD from multiple low back pain (LBP) RCTs to facilitate a study of treatment moderators. Due to sparse heterogeneous data, the repository needed to be robust and flexible to accommodate millions of data points prior to any subsequent analysis.We systematically identified RCTs of therapist delivered intervention for inclusion to the repository. Some were obtained through project publicity. We requested both individual items and aggregate scores of all baseline characteristics and outcomes for all available time points. The repository is made up of a hybrid database: entity-attribute-value and relational database which is capable of storing sparse heterogeneous datasets. We developed a bespoke software program to extract, transform and upload the shared data.There were 20 datasets with more than 3 million data points from 9328 participants. All trials collected covariates and outcomes data at baseline and follow-ups. The bespoke standardized repository is flexible to accommodate millions of data points without compromising data integrity. Data are easily retrieved for analysis using standard statistical programs.The bespoke hybrid repository is complex to implement and to query but its flexibility in supporting datasets with varying sets of responses and outcomes with different data types is a worthy trade off. The large standardized LBP dataset is also an important resource useable by other LBP researchers.A flexible adaptive database for pain studies that can easily be expanded for future researchers to map, transform and upload their data in a safe and secure environment. The data are standardized and harmonized which will facilitate future requests from other researchers for secondary analyses.
| S-EPMC5412919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the management of back pain. Using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, we searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2023, which reported relevant data on the topic. The effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided (US-guided) and fluoroscopy-guided (FL-guided) approaches for back pain management was compared in terms of postoperative pain intensity, postoperative functional outcomes, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analyses were conducted for different postoperative periods. Eight studies were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in post-procedural pain relief at one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and three months between the US-guided and FL-guided interventions for back pain management (SMD with 95% CI is -0.01 [-0.11, 0.10]), p = 0.91, I2 = 0%). In terms of the postoperative functional outcomes assessed by the "Oswestry Disability Index" (ODI) functionality score, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections (SMD with 95% CI: 0.13 [-0.00, 0.25], p = 0.05, I2 = 0). Finally, the US-guided and FL-guided injections did not show significantly different results in terms of postoperative complications (RR with 95% CI is 0.99 [0.49, 1.99], p = 0.97, I2 = 0). The subgroup analysis also did not demonstrate differences between the US-guided and FL-guided techniques in the following outcomes: vasovagal reaction, transient headache, and facial flushing. There was no significant difference between the US-guided and FL-guided injections for treating back pain in terms of postoperative pain intensity and complications. Still, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections in terms of functionality.
| S-EPMC10670286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) has a lifetime prevalence of 70-80%. Access to timely and personalized, evidence-based care is key to prevent chronic progression. Digital solutions may ease accessibility to treatment while reducing healthcare-related costs.PurposeWe aim to report the results of a fully remote digital care program (DCP) for acute LBP.Patients and methodsThis was an interventional, single-arm, cohort study of patients with acute LBP who received a DCP. Primary outcome was the mean change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index - ODI) after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in pain (NPRS), analgesic consumption, surgery likelihood, depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), fear-avoidance beliefs (FABQ-PA), work productivity (WPAI) and engagement.ResultsA total of 406 patients were enrolled in the program and of those, 332 (81.8%) completed the intervention. A significant disability reduction of 55.1% (14.93, 95% CI 13.95; 15.91) was observed, corresponding to a 76.1% responder rate (30% cut-off). Disability reduction was accompanied by significant improvements in pain (61.0%), depression (55.4%), anxiety (59.5%), productivity (65.6%), fear-avoidance beliefs (46.3%), intent to pursue surgery (59.1%), and analgesic consumption (from 35.7% at baseline to 10.8% at program end). DCP-related patient satisfaction score was 8.7/10.0 (SD 1.4).ConclusionThis study demonstrated the utility of a multimodal DCP for patients with acute LBP. Very high adherence rates and patient satisfaction were observed, alongside significant reductions in all assessed outcomes, consistent with the growing body of evidence supporting the management of acute LBP with DCPs.
| S-EPMC9261956 | biostudies-literature