Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.
METHODS: We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.
RESULTS: Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.
BACKGROUND: There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests.
RESULTS: We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal.
CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0).
RESULTS: We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.
CONTEXT: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed.
RESULTS: The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.
BACKGROUND: Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.
For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.
For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.
For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.
Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant.
Epidural steroids recently attracted world attention due to medication contamination resulting in many cases of fungal meningitis. What was rarely noted in these reports is that there is little data to support use of this treatment. This article reviews the literature on epidural steroids for various types of back pain and concludes that further testing should be performed to determine if and in what situations this intervention is useful before wide-spread use is resumed.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.
SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.
BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid "control" injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment. METHODS: This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality. RESULTS: A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87-2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88-1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [-0.50 to 0.94]). CONCLUSION: Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (<=12 weeks) were examined.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and adverse effects of oral opioid analgesics and spinal steroid injections on low back pain syndromes.
DESIGN: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched in September 2009 using combinations of terms related to spinal pain and its treatment. A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with low back pain syndromes and that evaluated patient outcomes after intervention using either oral opioids or spinal steroid injections.
RESULTS: Eight high-quality and ten moderate-quality randomized controlled trials were identified. One high-quality study on oral opioid therapy showed significant improvements in pain relief and patient function. Those on spinal steroid injections had a decreased Visual Analog Scale pain score by 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 2.21-12.1) points more than the control group at 1 mo or less and by 0.429 (95% confidence interval, -4.41 to 5.27) points at 1-3 mos. At more than 6 mos, there was no significant benefit: 0.930 (95% confidence interval, -5.03 to 6.89). Spinal steroids decreased the Oswestry Disability Index by 3.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-6.57) at 1 mo or less, by -0.281 (95% confidence interval, -3.18 to 2.62) at 1-3 mos, by -11.0 (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -7.16) at 3-6 mos, and by -0.205 (95% confidence interval, -3.50 to 3.09) compared with the control group at 6 mos or more, suggesting that there was improvement in function. All-cause mortality was low in our analysis of patients attending specialty clinics. It was difficult to assess the adverse effects of opioid therapy because they influenced up to 28% of patients to withdraw from the original studies. In terms of spinal steroid injections, headache appeared to be the most common adverse effect. However, there was no significantly increased risk of headaches associated with spinal steroids compared with control injections: odds ratio, 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.39).
CONCLUSIONS: Oral opioid therapy may be helpful for the treatment of low back pain, but it is unclear from the high-quality literature whether there are limitations from adverse effects. Spinal steroid injections are beneficial for low back pain and disability in the short-term. The high dropout rates caused by insufficient pain relief and adverse effects suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroid injections. There is more high-quality literature to support the use of spinal steroid injections compared with oral opioids in this condition.
Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
