Daniel L Belavy1, Scott D Tagliaferri2, Paul Buntine3,4, Tobias Saueressig5, Katja Ehrenbrusthoff2, Xiaolong Chen6, Ashish Diwan6, Clint T Miller2, Patrick J Owen2. 1. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule Für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany. daniel.belavy@hs-gesundheit.de. 2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. 3. Emergency Department, Box Hill Hospital, Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Physio Meets Science GmbH, 69181, Leimen, Germany. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Service, St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. RESULTS: Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher's method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low). CONCLUSION: Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020215137.
PURPOSE: Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. RESULTS: Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher's method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low). CONCLUSION: Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020215137.
Authors: M Eccles; N Steen; J Grimshaw; L Thomas; P McNamee; J Soutter; J Wilsdon; L Matowe; G Needham; F Gilbert; S Bond Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-05-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Annette Becker; Heiko Held; Marcus Redaelli; Jean F Chenot; Corinna Leonhardt; Stefan Keller; Erika Baum; Michael Pfingsten; Jan Hildebrandt; Heinz-Dieter Basler; Michael M Kochen; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Konstantin Strauch Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jan Hartvigsen; Mark J Hancock; Alice Kongsted; Quinette Louw; Manuela L Ferreira; Stéphane Genevay; Damian Hoy; Jaro Karppinen; Glenn Pransky; Joachim Sieper; Rob J Smeets; Martin Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annette Becker; Corinna Leonhardt; Michael M Kochen; Stefan Keller; Karl Wegscheider; Erika Baum; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Michael Pfingsten; Jan Hildebrandt; Heinz-Dieter Basler; Jean F Chenot Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468