Zachary L McCormick1, Yakov Vorobeychik2, Jatinder S Gill3, Ming-Chih J Kao4, Belinda Duszynski5, Matthew Smuck6, Milan P Stojanovic7. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 5. Spine Intervention Society, Hinsdale, Illinois. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 7. Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Service, VA Boston Healthcare System, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Objective: To perform a thorough assessment of the recently published Mint Trials in order to illustrate how to read and analyze a study critically, according to principles of evidence-based medicine. Design: Narrative review. Method: We have applied the recently published guidelines for composing and assessing studies on the treatment of pain to a recently published article describing a large study that claimed its "findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain." These guidelines describe the critical components of a high-quality manuscript that allows communication of all relevant information from authors to readers. Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles to the publication describing the Mint Trials reveals significant issues with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the authors. A thorough assessment demonstrates issues with inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnostic block protocols, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis, study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up. A failure to definitively establish a diagnosis, combined with use of an inadequate technique for radiofrequency neurotomy and numerous other methodological flaws, leaves the reader unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the study data. Conclusions: Critical analysis, rooted in principles of evidence-based medicine, must be employed by writers and readers alike in order to encourage transparency and ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn from study data.
Objective: To perform a thorough assessment of the recently published Mint Trials in order to illustrate how to read and analyze a study critically, according to principles of evidence-based medicine. Design: Narrative review. Method: We have applied the recently published guidelines for composing and assessing studies on the treatment of pain to a recently published article describing a large study that claimed its "findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain." These guidelines describe the critical components of a high-quality manuscript that allows communication of all relevant information from authors to readers. Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles to the publication describing the Mint Trials reveals significant issues with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the authors. A thorough assessment demonstrates issues with inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnostic block protocols, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis, study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up. A failure to definitively establish a diagnosis, combined with use of an inadequate technique for radiofrequency neurotomy and numerous other methodological flaws, leaves the reader unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the study data. Conclusions: Critical analysis, rooted in principles of evidence-based medicine, must be employed by writers and readers alike in order to encourage transparency and ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn from study data.
Authors: Zachary L McCormick; Heejung Choi; Rajiv Reddy; Raafay H Syed; Meghan Bhave; Mark C Kendall; Dost Khan; Geeta Nagpal; Masaru Teramoto; David R Walega Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Steven P Cohen; Arun Bhaskar; Anuj Bhatia; Asokumar Buvanendran; Tim Deer; Shuchita Garg; W Michael Hooten; Robert W Hurley; David J Kennedy; Brian C McLean; Jee Youn Moon; Samer Narouze; Sanjog Pangarkar; David Anthony Provenzano; Richard Rauck; B Todd Sitzman; Matthew Smuck; Jan van Zundert; Kevin Vorenkamp; Mark S Wallace; Zirong Zhao Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 6.288