Adriaan Louw1,2, Ina Diener2, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas1,3, Emilio J Puentedura1,4. 1. International Spine Pain Institute, Story City, Iowa, USA. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of sham surgery in orthopedics by conducting a systematic review of literature. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted on Biomed Central, BMJ.com, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, NLM Central Gateway, OVID, ProQuest (Digital Dissertations), PsycInfo, PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect and Web of Science. Secondary searching (PEARLing) was undertaken, whereby reference lists of the selected articles were reviewed for additional references not identified in the primary search. All randomized controlled trials comparing surgery versus sham surgery in orthopedics were included. Data were extracted and methodological quality was assessed by two reviewers using the Critical Review Form-Quantitative Studies. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the direction of outcomes of the trials, were established following the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Hierarchy of Evidence (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, 1999). Results: This review includes six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 277 subjects. All six studies were rated as very good on methodological quality. Heterogeneity across the studies, with respect to participants, interventions evaluated, and outcome measures used, prevented meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis of results, based on effect size, demonstrated that sham surgery in orthopedics was as effective as actual surgery in reducing pain and improving disability. Conclusions: This review suggests that sham surgery has shown to be just as effective as actual surgery in reducing pain and disability; however, care should be taken to generalize findings because of the limited number of studies.
Objective: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of sham surgery in orthopedics by conducting a systematic review of literature. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted on Biomed Central, BMJ.com, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, NLM Central Gateway, OVID, ProQuest (Digital Dissertations), PsycInfo, PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect and Web of Science. Secondary searching (PEARLing) was undertaken, whereby reference lists of the selected articles were reviewed for additional references not identified in the primary search. All randomized controlled trials comparing surgery versus sham surgery in orthopedics were included. Data were extracted and methodological quality was assessed by two reviewers using the Critical Review Form-Quantitative Studies. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the direction of outcomes of the trials, were established following the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Hierarchy of Evidence (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, 1999). Results: This review includes six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 277 subjects. All six studies were rated as very good on methodological quality. Heterogeneity across the studies, with respect to participants, interventions evaluated, and outcome measures used, prevented meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis of results, based on effect size, demonstrated that sham surgery in orthopedics was as effective as actual surgery in reducing pain and improving disability. Conclusions: This review suggests that sham surgery has shown to be just as effective as actual surgery in reducing pain and disability; however, care should be taken to generalize findings because of the limited number of studies.
Authors: Michael H Bernstein; Maayan Rosenfield; Nathaniel Fuchs; Molly Magill; Charlotte R Blease; Francesca L Beaudoin; Josiah D Rich; Karolina Wartolowska; Richard M Terek Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Faiza Sarwar; Teun Teunis; David Ring; Lee M Reichel; Tom Crijns; Amirreza Fatehi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Laura Wall; Madeleine Hinwood; Danielle Lang; Angela Smith; Samantha Bunzli; Philip Clarke; Peter F M Choong; Michelle M Dowsey; Francesco Paolucci Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 2.692