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.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Currently, no satisfactory treatment is available for sciatica caused by herniated discs and/or spinal stenosis. The objective of this study is to assess the value of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors in the treatment of sciatica.
METHODS: Without language restrictions, we searched PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, the Web of Science, the Clinical Trials Registers, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the China Academic Library and Information System. We then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the enrolled trials that met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Nine prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two before-after controlled trials involving 531 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Our systematic assessment and meta-analysis demonstrated that in terms of the natural course of the disease, compared with the control condition, TNF-α inhibitors neither significantly relieved lower back and leg pain (both p > 0.05) nor enhanced the proportion of patients who felt overall satisfaction (global perceived effect (satisfaction)) or were able to return to work (return to work) (combined endpoint; p > 0.05) at the short-term, medium-term and long-term follow-ups. In addition, compared with the control condition, TNF-α inhibitors could reduce the risk ratio (RR) of discectomy or radicular block (combined endpoint; RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00, p = 0.049) at medium-term follow-up, but did not decrease RR at the short-term (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.40, p = 0.508) and long-term follow-ups (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.03, p = 0.065).
CONCLUSION: The currently available evidence demonstrated that other than reducing the RR of discectomy or radicular block (combined endpoint) at medium-term follow-up, TNF-α inhibitors showed limited clinical value in the treatment of sciatica caused by herniated discs and/or spinal stenosis.
Journal»European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
PURPOSE: Systematic review comparing biological agents, targeting tumour necrosis factor α, for sciatica with placebo and alternative interventions.
METHODS: We searched 21 electronic databases and bibliographies of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and controlled observational studies of adults who had sciatica treated by biological agents compared with placebo or alternative interventions.
RESULTS: We pooled the results of six studies (five RCTs and one non-RCT) in meta-analyses. Compared with placebo biological agents had: better global effects in the short-term odds ratio (OR) 2.0 (95 % CI 0.7-6.0), medium-term OR 2.7 (95 % CI 1.0-7.1) and long-term OR 2.3 [95 % CI 0.5 to 9.7); improved leg pain intensity in the short-term weighted mean difference (WMD) -13.6 (95 % CI -26.8 to -0.4), medium-term WMD -7.0 (95 % CI -15.4 to 1.5), but not long-term WMD 0.2 (95 % CI -20.3 to 20.8); improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the short-term WMD -5.2 (95 % CI -14.1 to 3.7), medium-term WMD -8.2 (95 % CI -14.4 to -2.0), and long-term WMD -5.0 (95 % CI -11.8 to 1.8). There was heterogeneity in the leg pain intensity and ODI results and improvements were no longer statistically significant when studies were restricted to RCTs. There was a reduction in the need for discectomy, which was not statistically significant, and no difference in the number of adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to recommend these agents when treating sciatica, but sufficient evidence to suggest that larger RCTs are needed.
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.
