Dataset Information

The comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Neck 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 ANALYSIS:Nine 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 DISSEMINATION:This 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 NUMBER:CRD42019126523.

SUBMITTER: de Zoete RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7239534 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for a network meta-analysis.

de Zoete Rutger Mj RM McAuley James H JH Armfield Nigel R NR Sterling Michele M

BMJ open 20200517 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Neck 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 investigatio ...[more]

PMID: 32423932

Similar Datasets

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:INTRODUCTION:Chronic non-specific low back pain is a major public health problem. Evidence supports the effectiveness of exercise as an intervention. Due to a paucity of direct comparisons of different exercise categories, medical guidelines were unable to make specific recommendations regarding the type of exercise working best in improving chronic low back pain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials aims to investigate the comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched on November 2019 and without language restrictions. The search will be updated after data analysis. Studies on adults with non-specific low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration comparing exercise to either no specific intervention (ie, no treatment, wait-list or usual care at the treating physician's discretion) and/or functionally inert interventions (ie, sham or attention control interventions) will be eligible. Pain intensity and back-specific disability are defined as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include health-related physical and mental quality of life, work disability, frequency of analgesic use and adverse events. All outcomes will be analysed short-term, intermediate-term and long-term. Data will be extracted independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using the recommendations by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and be based on an adaptation of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This NMA will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses_NMA checklist. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, implemented in existing national and international guidelines and will be presented to health care providers and decision makers. The planned completion date of the study is 1 July 2021. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020151472.

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.

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:ObjectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus drug interventions on mortality outcomes.DesignMetaepidemiological study.Eligibility criteriaMeta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with mortality outcomes comparing the effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions with each other or with control (placebo or usual care).Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, May 2013.Main outcome measureMortality.Data synthesisWe combined study level death outcomes from exercise and drug trials using random effects network meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 16 (four exercise and 12 drug) meta-analyses. Incorporating an additional three recent exercise trials, our review collectively included 305 randomised controlled trials with 339,274 participants. Across all four conditions with evidence on the effectiveness of exercise on mortality outcomes (secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation of stroke, treatment of heart failure, prevention of diabetes), 14,716 participants were randomised to physical activity interventions in 57 trials. No statistically detectable differences were evident between exercise and drug interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and prediabetes. Physical activity interventions were more effective than drug treatment among patients with stroke (odds ratios, exercise v anticoagulants 0.09, 95% credible intervals 0.01 to 0.70 and exercise v antiplatelets 0.10, 0.01 to 0.62). Diuretics were more effective than exercise in heart failure (exercise v diuretics 4.11, 1.17 to 24.76). Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was not significant.ConclusionsAlthough limited in quantity, existing randomised trial evidence on exercise interventions suggests that exercise and many drug interventions are often potentially similar in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation after stroke, treatment of heart failure, and prevention of diabetes.

Dataset Information

The comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for a network meta-analysis.

Publications

The comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets