Dataset Information

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

ABSTRACT: The management of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain (LRP) is of primary importance to healthcare professionals. This study aimed to: identify international clinical practice guidelines on LRP, assess their methodological quality, and summarize their diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations. A systematic search was performed (August 2019) in MEDLINE, PEDro, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), International Guideline Library, Guideline central, and Google Scholar. Guidelines presenting recommendations on diagnosis and/or treatment of adult patients with LRP were included. Two independent reviewers selected eligible guidelines, evaluated quality with Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II, and extracted recommendations. Recommendations were classified into 'should do', 'could do', 'do not do', or 'uncertain'; their consistency was labelled as 'consistent', 'common', or 'inconsistent'. Twenty-three guidelines of varying quality (AGREE II overall assessment ranging from 17% to 92%) were included. Consistent recommendations regarding diagnosis are ('should do'): Straight leg raise (SLR) test, crossed SLR test, mapping pain distribution, gait assessment, congruence of signs and symptoms. Routine use of imaging is consistently not recommended. The following therapeutic options are consistently recommended ('should do'): educational care, physical activity, discectomy under specific circumstances (e.g., failure of conservative treatment). Referral to a specialist is recommended when conservative therapy fails or when steppage gait is present. These recommendations provide a clear overview of the management options in patients with LRP.

SUBMITTER: Khorami AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200038 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and summarize clinical practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) for the Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation for the World Health Organization (WHO).Data sourcesAcademic databases, Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites were searched using the general criteria "ASD/ID" AND "rehabilitation" AND "guideline," restricted to English-only guidelines.Study selectionWork group members independently screened titles and abstracts (1952 ASD; 1027 ID) and excluded articles if not (1) a guideline; (2) about rehabilitation; (3) published since 2008; or (4) about ASD/ID. Full-text screening (29 ASD; 5 ID) involved 3 additional exclusion criteria: (1) contained conflict of interest; (2) lacked information on strength of recommendation; or (3) failed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Six guidelines (4 ASD: 2 on youth, 1 on adults, 1 on all ages; 2 ID: 1 on challenging behaviors, 1 on mental health) resulted.Data extractionWork group members extracted 524 recommendations (386 ASD; 138 ID) from the guidelines including the level of evidence, diagnostic and age group, recommendation type (assessment, intervention, service), target, and valence.Data synthesisOf the 270 intervention recommendations (212 ASD; 58 ID), only 36 for ASD and 47 for ID were empirically based. Most comprised biomedical (23%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychosocial (21%) interventions for ASD and behavioral (14%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychological (14%) interventions for ID. Intervention recommendations primarily targeted coexisting conditions (56% ASD; 93% ID), whereas core symptoms received much less attention (26% ASD).ConclusionsClinical practice guidelines reviewed for ASD and ID primarily contained recommendations based on expert opinion, with the plurality of recommendations relating to pharmacologic treatment. Vital next steps include identifying relevant interventions for inclusion in the WHO Package and continuing to conduct rigorous intervention research, particularly on core symptoms of these conditions, to extend recommendations for high-quality guidelines.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine if, and to what extent, published clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of chronic tinnitus vary in their recommendations.DesignSystematic review of guidelines.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE and GIN electronic databases were searched in March 2022 and the search was updated in June 2023.Eligibility criteriaWe included clinical practice guidelines that gave recommendations on the treatment of tinnitus. No language restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted the data and used the AGREE checklist to report on reporting.ResultsA total of 10 guidelines were identified and included, published between 2011 and 2021. Recommendations for 13 types of tinnitus treatments were compared. Large differences in guideline development and methodology were found. Seven of the 10 guidelines included a systematic search of the literature to identify the available evidence. Six of the 10 guidelines used a framework for the development of the guideline. Reporting was poor in multiple guidelines. Counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy were the only treatments that were recommended for treating tinnitus associated distress by all guidelines that reported on these topics. Tinnitus retraining therapy, sound therapy, hearing aids and cochlear implantation were not unanimously recommended either due to the lack of evidence, a high risk of bias or judgement of no beneficial effect of the specific treatment.ConclusionsThere were notable differences with respect to whether guidelines considered the available evidence sufficient enough to make a recommendation. Notably, we identified substantial differences in the rigour of guideline design and development. Reporting was poor in many guidelines. Future guidelines could benefit from the use of reporting tools to improve reporting and transparency and the inclusion of guideline experts and patients to improve the quality of clinical practice guidelines on tinnitus.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite the publication of hundreds of trials on gout and hyperuricemia, management of these conditions remains suboptimal. We aimed to assess the quality and consistency of guidance documents for gout and hyperuricemia.DesignSystematic review and quality assessment using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II methodology.Data sourcesPubMed and EMBASE (27 October 2016), two Chinese academic databases, eight guideline databases, and Google and Google scholar (July 2017).Eligibility criteriaWe included the latest version of international and national/regional clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperuricemia and gout, published in English or Chinese.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened searched items and extracted data. Four reviewers independently scored documents using AGREE II. Recommendations from all documents were tabulated and visualised in a coloured grid.ResultsTwenty-four guidance documents (16 clinical practice guidelines and 8 consensus statements) published between 2003 and 2017 were included. Included documents performed well in the domains of scope and purpose (median 85.4%, range 66.7%-100.0%) and clarity of presentation (median 79.2%, range 48.6%-98.6%), but unsatisfactory in applicability (median 10.9%, range 0.0%-66.7%) and editorial independence (median 28.1%, range 0.0%-83.3%). The 2017 British Society of Rheumatology guideline received the highest scores. Recommendations were concordant on the target serum uric acid level for long-term control, on some indications for urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and on the first-line drugs for ULT and for acute attack. Substantially inconsistent recommendations were provided for many items, especially for the timing of initiation of ULT and for treatment for asymptomatic hyperuricemia.ConclusionsMethodological quality needs improvement in guidance documents on gout and hyperuricemia. Evidence for certain clinical questions is lacking, despite numerous trials in this field. Promoting standard guidance development methods and synthesising high-quality clinical evidence are potential approaches to reduce recommendation inconsistencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42016046104.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.MethodsA systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed.ResultsOf 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size.ConclusionsAccording to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.

Dataset Information

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets