Dataset Information

Development of a repository of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of therapists delivered interventions for low back pain.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hee SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5412919 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a repository of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of therapists delivered interventions for low back pain.

Hee S W SW Dritsaki M M Willis A A Underwood M M Patel S S

European journal of pain (London, England) 20161215 5

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We systemati ...[more]

PMID: 27977068

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProven treatments for low back pain, at best, only provide modest overall benefits. Matching people to treatments that are likely to be most effective for them may improve clinical outcomes and makes better use of health care resources.MethodsWe conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three types of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain (active physical, passive physical and psychological treatments). We applied two statistical methods (recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement) to identify potential subgroups who might gain greater benefits from different treatments from our individual participant data meta-analysis.ResultsWe pooled data from 19 randomised controlled trials, totalling 9328 participants. There were 5349 (57%) females with similar ratios of females in control and intervention arms. The average age was 49 years (standard deviation, SD, 14). Participants with greater psychological distress and physical disability gained most benefit in improving on the mental component scale (MCS) of SF-12/36 from passive physical treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, CI, 3.39 to 5.15). Recursive partitioning method found that participants with worse disability at baseline gained most benefit in improving the disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) outcome from psychological treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.31). Adaptive risk group refinement did not find any subgroup that would gain much treatment effect between psychological and non-active usual care. Neither statistical method identified any subgroups who would gain an additional benefit from active physical treatment compared to non-active usual care.ConclusionsOur methodological approaches worked well and may have applicability in other clinical areas. Passive physical treatments were most likely to help people who were younger with higher levels of disability and low levels of psychological distress. Psychological treatments were more likely to help those with severe disability. Despite this, the clinical importance of identifying these subgroups is limited. The sizes of sub-groups more likely to benefit and the additional effect sizes observed are small. Our analyses provide no evidence to support the use of sub-grouping for people with low back pain.

Project description:BackgroundCalls have been made for increased access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials, to ensure that complete evidence is available. However, despite the obvious benefits, progress towards this is frustratingly slow. In the meantime, many systematic reviews have already collected IPD from clinical trials. We propose that a central repository for these IPD should be established to ensure that these datasets are safeguarded and made available for use by others, building on the strengths and advantages of the collaborative groups that have been brought together in developing the datasets.ObjectiveEvaluate the level of support, and identify major issues, for establishing a central repository of IPD.DesignOn-line survey with email reminders.Participants71 reviewers affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration's IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group were invited to participate.Results30 (42%) invitees responded: 28 (93%) had been involved in an IPD review and 24 (80%) had been involved in a randomised trial. 25 (83%) agreed that a central repository was a good idea and 25 (83%) agreed that they would provide their IPD for central storage. Several benefits of a central repository were noted: safeguarding and standardisation of data, increased efficiency of IPD meta-analyses, knowledge advancement, and facilitating future clinical, and methodological research. The main concerns were gaining permission from trial data owners, uncertainty about the purpose of the repository, potential resource implications, and increased workload for IPD reviewers. Restricted access requiring approval, data security, anonymisation of data, and oversight committees were highlighted as issues under governance of the repository.ConclusionThere is support in this community of IPD reviewers, many of whom are also involved in clinical trials, for storing IPD in a central repository. Results from this survey are informing further work on developing a repository of IPD which is currently underway by our group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42-65?years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI >?0.24 were considered 'frail'. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex, and disease severity. In negative binomial regression, we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7-21% in T2DM trials, 33-73% in RA trials, and 15-22% in COPD trials. The 99th centile of the FI ranged between 0.35 and 0.45. Female sex was associated with higher FI in all trials. Increased disease severity was associated with higher FI in RA and COPD, but not T2DM. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), 1.45 (1.13-1.87), and 1.99 (1.43-2.76) for T2DM, RA, and COPD, respectively. CONCLUSION:The upper limit of frailty in trials is lower than has been described in the general population. However, mild to moderate frailty was common, suggesting trial data may be harnessed to inform disease management in people living with frailty. Participants with higher FI experienced more serious adverse events, suggesting screening for frailty in trial participants would enable identification of those that merit closer monitoring. Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle-aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:From 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). CONCLUSION:Only 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.

Project description:Study designIndividual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP.Summary of backgroundThe effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies.MethodsIPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months).ResultsWe received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data.ConclusionWe did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

Project description:BackgroundExercise and education is recommended as first-line treatment by evidence-based, international guidelines for low back pain (LBP). Despite consensus regarding the treatment, there is a gap between guidelines and what is offered to patients. Digital LBP treatments are an emerging way of delivering first-line treatment.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes after participation in a 3-month digitally delivered treatment program for individuals with subacute or chronic LBP.MethodsWe analyzed data from 2593 consecutively recruited participants in a digitally delivered treatment program, available via the national health care system in Sweden. The program consists of video-instructed and progressive adaptable exercises, education through text lessons, and a chat and video function connecting participants with a personal physiotherapist. The primary outcome was mean change and proportion reaching a minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for LBP (2 points or 30% decrease) assessed with the numerical rating scale (average pain during the past week, discrete boxes, 0-10, best to worst). Secondary outcomes were mean change and proportion reaching MCIC (10 points or 30%) in disability, assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; 0-100, best to worst) and a question on patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).ResultsThe mean participant age was 63 years, 73.85% (1915/2593) were female, 54.72% (1419/2593) had higher education, 50.56% (1311/2593) were retired, and the mean BMI was 26.5 kg/m2. Participants completed on average 84% of the prescribed exercises and lessons, with an adherence of ≥80% in 69.26% (1796/2593) and ≥90% in 50.13% (1300/2593) of the participants. Mean reduction in pain from baseline to 3 months was 1.7 (95% CI -1.8 to -1.6), corresponding to a 35% relative change. MCIC was reached by 58.50% (1517/2593) of participants. ODI decreased 4 points (95% CI -4.5 to -3.7), and 36.48% (946/2593) reached an MCIC. A change from no to yes in PASS was seen in 30.35% (787/2593) of participants. Multivariable analysis showed positive associations between reaching an MCIC in pain and high baseline pain (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.1), adherence (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8), and motivation (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5), while we found negative associations for wish for surgery (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9) and pain in other joints (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-0.9). We found no associations between sociodemographic characteristics and pain reduction.ConclusionsParticipants in this digitally delivered treatment for LBP had reduced pain at 3-month follow-up, and 58.50% (1517/2593) reported an MCIC in pain. Our findings suggest that digital treatment programs can reduce pain at clinically important levels for people with high adherence to treatment but that those with such severe LBP problems that they wish to undergo surgery may benefit from additional support.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05226156; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05226156.

Dataset Information

Development of a repository of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of therapists delivered interventions for low back pain.

Publications

Development of a repository of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of therapists delivered interventions for low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets