Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neck Pain (NP) has been ranked as one of the top chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lived with disability in the latest Global Burden of Disease. NP has remarkable socio-economic consequences however, research efforts are limited. Discrepancies among guidelines recommendations on management of chronic neck pain exist. The purpose of this study protocol is to provide the methods for a review with network meta-analysis to identify the most effective interventions for chronic neck pain.

Methods

The following databases will be searched from their inception to February 2019: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological and not pharmacological interventions will be included and their risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes will be reduction in pain and disability. A network meta-analysis will be carried out and pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 15 software. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) will be applied to assess quality of the body of the evidence.

Results

The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication.

Conclusion

This network meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive review on the most effective treatments for the management of chronic neck pain providing key evidence-based information to patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders. Registration: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019124501).

SUBMITTER: Pillastrini P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6831373 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Pillastrini Paolo P Castellini Greta G Chiarotto Alessandro A Fasciani Francesco F Marzioni Francesco F Vanti Carla C Bertozzi Lucia L Gianola Silvia S

Medicine 20190801 33

<h4>Background</h4>Neck Pain (NP) has been ranked as one of the top chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lived with disability in the latest Global Burden of Disease. NP has remarkable socio-economic consequences however, research efforts are limited. Discrepancies among guidelines recommendations on management of chronic neck pain exist. The purpose of this study protocol is to provide the methods for a review with network meta-analysis to identify the most effective interve ...[more]

PMID: 31415375

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNeck pain is a global burdensome problem, with a large proportion of neck pain cases becoming chronic. Although physical exercise is a commonly prescribed treatment, the evidence on the effectiveness of isolated exercise interventions remains limited. Traditional pairwise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are limited in only comparing two interventions. This protocol describes the design of a network meta-analysis, which enables a comparative investigation of all physical exercise interventions for which RCTs are available. We aim to systematically compare the effectiveness of different types of physical exercise in people with chronic non-specific neck pain.Methods and analysisNine electronic databases (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus) were searched for RCTs from inception to 12 March 2019. Titles and abstract firstly, and full-text papers secondly, will be screened by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome measure is effectiveness of the intervention. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using the PEDro scale. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which has been adapted for network meta-analyses. The available evidence will be summarised using a network diagram. A contribution matrix will be presented to allow assessment of direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots will be constructed to visualise effects of all included exercise interventions. Pairwise effect sizes will be calculated by including all evidence available in the network. Effect measures for treatments that have not been compared in a pairwise RCT can be compared indirectly by contrasting effect sizes of comparisons with a common comparator.Ethics and disseminationThis work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42019126523.

Project description:IntroductionNeck pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal complaint and is increasing in prevalence. Current clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews recommended conservative, pharmacological and invasive interventions for individuals with NP. However, optimal management specifically for those who are middle-aged or older adults (≥45 years) is not available; and important considering our ageing population.Methods and analysisA systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted following the Cochrane guidelines. Eligibility criteria include randomised controlled/clinical trials evaluating any of acute (<3 months) or chronic (≥3 months) non-specific NP, whiplash associated disorders, cervical radiculopathy and cervicogenic headache. Any interventions and outcome measures detailed within The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains will be included. Two independent reviewers will search key databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PEDro and PsycINFO), grey literature, key journals and reference lists in May 2022. Two reviewers will decide eligibility and assess risk of bias (ROB) of included studies. The kappa statistic will be used to evaluate agreement between the reviewers at each stage. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Descriptive data and ROB will be summarised and tabulated. Traditional pairwise meta-analysis using random-effect model will be performed for all direct comparisons, and NMA using a frequentist random-effect model then performed based on NP classification where possible. A network of traditional pairwise meta-analysis allows comparisons of multiple interventions from both direct and indirect evidence to provide a hierarchal establishment for enhancing decision making of clinical practitioners.Ethics and disseminationEthic approval is not required as the study is a literature review. The findings will be shared with the national and international researchers, healthcare professionals and the general public through publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021284618.

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is a highly prevalent medical condition that incurs substantial social burden. Although manual therapy is widely used for treatment of neck pain, the body of evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is not conclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the effect, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy, a traditional Korean manual therapy for treatment of various musculoskeletal complaints.Methods/designThis study is the protocol for a two-armed parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. A total 108 patients with chronic neck pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, numeric rating scale [NRS] of neck pain ≥ 5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospital sites. Participants will be allotted to one of two groups (n = 54, respectively): the Chuna manual therapy group, and the usual care (conventional physical therapy and medication treatment) group. Ten sessions of Chuna manual therapy or usual care will be administered twice a week for five weeks. Since the study design does not permit patient or physician blinding, the outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck pain at 5 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the VAS of radiating arm pain, NRS of neck pain and radiating arm pain, Vernon-Mior neck disability index (NDI), Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), EQ-VAS, patient global impression of change (PGIC), economic evaluation, adverse effects, and drug consumption. Follow-up outcome assessments will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization.DiscussionThis study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy and usual care on chronic neck pain. Adverse events, and costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be evaluated to assess safety and exploratory cost-effectiveness (economic evaluation). This study aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy.Trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0002732 . Registered on 13 March 2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03294785 . Registered on 27 September 2017.

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. METHODS:We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. DISCUSSION:While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prevalence of hypertension is a major public health challenge. Despite it being highly preventable, hypertension is responsible for a significant proportion of global morbidity and mortality. Common methods for controlling hypertension include prescribing anti-hypertensive medication, a pharmacological approach, and increasing physical activity, a behavioural approach. In general, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and behavioural approaches for reducing blood pressure in hypertension. A previous network meta-analysis suggested that physical activity interventions may be just as effective as many anti-hypertensive medications in preventing mortality; however, this analysis did not provide the comparative effectiveness of these disparate modes of intervention on blood pressure reduction. The primary objective of this study is to use network meta-analysis to compare the relative effectiveness, for blood pressure reduction, of different approaches to increasing physical activity and different first-line anti-hypertensive therapies in people with hypertension. METHODS:A systematic review will be conducted to identify studies involving randomised controlled trials which compare different types of physical activity interventions and first-line anti-hypertensive therapy interventions to each other or to other comparators (e.g. placebo, usual care) where blood pressure reduction is the primary outcome. We will search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. For studies which meet our inclusion criteria, two reviewers will extract data independently and assess the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Network meta-analyses will be conducted to generate estimates of comparative effectiveness of each intervention class and rankings of their effectiveness, in terms of reduction of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. DISCUSSION:This study will provide evidence regarding the comparability of two common first-line treatment options for people with hypertension. It will also describe the extent to which there is direct evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of increasing physical activity and initiating anti-hypertensive therapy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017070579.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets