Tara Gurung1, David R Ellard2, Dipesh Mistry3, Shilpa Patel4, Martin Underwood5. 1. Warwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: T.Gurung@warwick.ac.uk. 2. Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: D.R.Ellard@warwick.ac.uk. 3. Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: D.Mistry@warwick.ac.uk. 4. Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: Shilpa.Patel@warwick.ac.uk. 5. Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: M.Underwood@warwick.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying which patients with non-specific low back pain are likely to gain the greatest benefit from different treatments is an important research priority. Few studies are large enough to produce data on sub-group effects from different treatments. Data from existing large studies may help identify potential moderators to use in future individual patient data meta-analyses. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review papers of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain to identify potential moderators to inform an individual patient data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Citation Index and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRALhttp://www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-central-register-controlled-trials-central) for relevant papers. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened for randomised controlled trials with ≥500 or more participants, and cohort studies of ≥1000 or more participants. We examined all publications related to these studies for any reported moderator analyses. Two reviewers independently did risk of bias assessment of main results and quality assessment of any moderator analyses. RESULTS: We included four randomised trials (n=7208). Potential moderators with strong evidence (p<0.05) in one or more studies were age, employment status and type, back pain status, narcotic medication use, treatment expectations and education. Potential moderators with weaker evidence (0.05<p≤0.20) included gender, psychological distress, pain/disability and quality of life. CONCLUSION: There are insufficient robust data on moderators to be useful in clinical practice. This review has identified some important potential moderators of treatment effect worthy of testing in future confirmatory analyses.
BACKGROUND: Identifying which patients with non-specific low back pain are likely to gain the greatest benefit from different treatments is an important research priority. Few studies are large enough to produce data on sub-group effects from different treatments. Data from existing large studies may help identify potential moderators to use in future individual patient data meta-analyses. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review papers of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain to identify potential moderators to inform an individual patient data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Citation Index and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRALhttp://www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-central-register-controlled-trials-central) for relevant papers. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened for randomised controlled trials with ≥500 or more participants, and cohort studies of ≥1000 or more participants. We examined all publications related to these studies for any reported moderator analyses. Two reviewers independently did risk of bias assessment of main results and quality assessment of any moderator analyses. RESULTS: We included four randomised trials (n=7208). Potential moderators with strong evidence (p<0.05) in one or more studies were age, employment status and type, back pain status, narcotic medication use, treatment expectations and education. Potential moderators with weaker evidence (0.05<p≤0.20) included gender, psychological distress, pain/disability and quality of life. CONCLUSION: There are insufficient robust data on moderators to be useful in clinical practice. This review has identified some important potential moderators of treatment effect worthy of testing in future confirmatory analyses.
Authors: Jason M Beneciuk; Jonathan C Hill; Paul Campbell; Ebenezer Afolabi; Steven Z George; Kate M Dunn; Nadine E Foster Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Imran Ahmed; Amit Chawla; Martin Underwood; Andrew J Price; Andrew Metcalfe; Charles Hutchinson; Jane Warwick; Kate Seers; Helen Parsons; Peter Dh Wall Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Sven Karstens; Pauline Kuithan; Stefanie Joos; Jonathan C Hill; Michel Wensing; Jost Steinhäuser; Katja Krug; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sven Karstens; Katja Krug; Jonathan C Hill; Christian Stock; Jost Steinhaeuser; Joachim Szecsenyi; Stefanie Joos Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 2.362