Primary studies included in this systematic review

loading
21 articles (21 References) Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.

Journal The New England journal of medicine
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).

Primary study

Unclassified

Epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline in subacute sciatica: a multicenter, randomized trial.

Journal Annals of internal medicine
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Perineural inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor have recently generated intense interest as an alternative to epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline better improves pain and function in adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy. DESIGN: A multicenter, 3-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 2008 to 2011. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by site. Pharmacists prepared the syringes. Patients, treating physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00733096) SETTING: Military and civilian treatment centers. PATIENTS: 84 adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy of less than 6 months' duration. INTERVENTION: 2 epidural injections of steroids, etanercept, or saline, mixed with bupivacaine and separated by 2 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was leg pain 1 month after the second injection. All patients had 1-month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for the 6-month study period. RESULTS: The group that received epidural steroids had greater reductions in the primary outcome measure than those who received saline (mean difference, -1.26 [95% CI, -2.79 to 0.27]; P = 0.11) or etanercept (mean difference, -1.01 [CI, -2.60 to 0.58]; P = 0.21). For back pain, smaller differences favoring steroids compared with saline (mean difference, -0.52 [CI, -1.85 to 0.81]; P = 0.44) and etanercept (mean difference, -0.92 [CI,-2.28 to 0.44]; P = 0.18) were observed. The largest differences were noted for functional capacity, in which etanercept fared worse than the other treatments: steroids vs. etanercept (mean difference, -16.16 [CI, -26.05 to -6.27]; P = 0.002), steroids vs. saline (mean difference, -5.87 [CI, -15.59 to 3.85]; P = 0.23), and etanercept vs. saline (mean difference, 10.29 [CI, 0.55 to 20.04]; P = 0.04). More patients treated with epidural steroids (75%) reported 50% or greater leg pain relief and a positive global perceived effect at 1 month than those who received saline (50%) or etanercept (42%) (P = 0.09). LIMITATION: Short-term follow-up, small sample size, and a possibly subtherapeutic dose of etanercept. CONCLUSION: Epidural steroid injections may provide modest short-term pain relief for some adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy, but larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm their benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute, International Spinal Intervention Society, and Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research.

Primary study

Unclassified

Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Journal BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 5 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (5 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy in the short (6 weeks), intermediate (12 weeks), and long term (52 weeks). DESIGN: Multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient multidisciplinary back clinics of five Norwegian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2005 and February 2009, 461 patients assessed for inclusion (presenting with lumbar radiculopathy >12 weeks). 328 patients excluded for cauda equina syndrome, severe paresis, severe pain, previous spinal injection or surgery, deformity, pregnancy, ongoing breast feeding, warfarin therapy, ongoing treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, body mass index >30, poorly controlled psychiatric conditions with possible secondary gain, and severe comorbidity. INTERVENTIONS: Subcutaneous sham injections of 2 mL 0.9% saline, caudal epidural injections of 30 mL 0.9% saline, and caudal epidural injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 29 mL 0.9% saline. Participants received two injections with a two week interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: Oswestry disability index scores. Secondary: European quality of life measure, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain and for leg pain. RESULTS: Power calculations required the inclusion of 41 patients per group. We did not allocate 17 of 133 eligible patients because their symptoms improved before randomisation. All groups improved after the interventions, but we found no statistical or clinical differences between the groups over time. For the sham group (n = 40), estimated change in the Oswestry disability index from the adjusted baseline value was -4.7 (95% confidence intervals -0.6 to -8.8) at 6 weeks, -11.4 (-6.3 to -14.5) at 12 weeks, and -14.3 (-10.0 to -18.7) at 52 weeks. For the epidural saline intervention group (n = 39) compared with the sham group, differences in primary outcome were -0.5 (-6.3 to 5.4) at 6 weeks, 1.4 (-4.5 to 7.2) at 12 weeks, and -1.9 (-8.0 to 4.3) at 52 weeks; for the epidural steroid group (n=37), corresponding differences were -2.9 (-8.7 to 3.0), 4.0 (-1.9 to 9.9), and 1.9 (-4.2 to 8.0). Analysis adjusted for duration of leg pain, back pain, and sick leave did not change this trend. CONCLUSIONS: Caudal epidural steroid or saline injections are not recommended for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN No 12574253.

Primary study

Unclassified

Intrastriatal transplantation of microcarrier-bound human retinal pigment epithelial cells versus sham surgery in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

blocked
Journal The Lancet. Neurology
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Human retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells produce levodopa and their transplantation into the striatum might improve continuity of administration compared with that achieved with oral levodopa. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of transplantation of microcarrier-bound human RPE cells versus a sham surgery control in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study eligible patients were aged 36-70 years, had been symptomatic for at least 5 years, were in Hoehn and Yahr stage 3-4 and had unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor scores of 38-70 when off medication (off state), and had symptoms that responded to oral levodopa but were insufficiently controlled by optimised pharmacotherapy. Randomisation was done in a 1:1 ratio. Only the neurosurgical team was aware of treatment assignments. During stereotactic transplantation around 325,000 cells per side were injected into the postcommissural putamen; sham surgery patients received partial burr holes. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in UPDRS off-state motor score at 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00206687. FINDINGS: Of 71 enrolled patients, 35 underwent cell transplantation and 36 sham surgery. Change in mean motor scores did not differ significantly between groups (-10.5 [SD 10.26] for transplantation vs -10.1 [SD 12.26] for sham surgery, p=0.9). The overall rate of adverse events was similar in the two study groups, although the number attributable to surgery or RPE cells (mostly neurological or psychiatric) was higher in transplant recipients. Two and seven patients died in the sham surgery and transplantation group, respectively; one death in the latter group was possibly related to surgery or RPE cells. INTERPRETATION: Transplantation of human RPE cells provided no antiparkinsonian benefits compared with sham surgery. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare AG.

Primary study

Unclassified

AAV2-GAD gene therapy for advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, sham-surgery controlled, randomised trial.

blocked
Journal The Lancet. Neurology
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Gene transfer of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) and other methods that modulate production of GABA in the subthalamic nucleus improve basal ganglia function in parkinsonism in animal models. We aimed to assess the effect of bilateral delivery of AAV2-GAD in the subthalamic nucleus compared with sham surgery in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Patients aged 30-75 years who had progressive levodopa-responsive Parkinson's disease and an overnight off-medication unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor score of 25 or more were enrolled into this double-blind, phase 2, randomised controlled trial, which took place at seven centres in the USA between Nov 17, 2008, and May 11, 2010. Infusion failure or catheter tip location beyond a predefined target zone led to exclusion of patients before unmasking for the efficacy analysis. The primary outcome measure was the 6-month change from baseline in double-blind assessment of off-medication UPDRS motor scores. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00643890. FINDINGS: Of 66 patients assessed for eligibility, 23 were randomly assigned to sham surgery and 22 to AAV2-GAD infusions; of those, 21 and 16, respectively, were analysed. At the 6-month endpoint, UPDRS score for the AAV2-GAD group decreased by 8·1 points (SD 1·7, 23·1%; p<0·0001) and by 4·7 points in the sham group (1·5, 12·7%; p=0·003). The AAV2-GAD group showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline in UPDRS scores compared with the sham group over the 6-month course of the study (RMANOVA, p=0·04). One serious adverse event occurred within 6 months of surgery; this case of bowel obstruction occurred in the AAV2-GAD group, was not attributed to treatment or the surgical procedure, and fully resolved. Other adverse events were mild or moderate, likely related to surgery and resolved; the most common were headache (seven patients in the AAV2-GAD group vs two in the sham group) and nausea (six vs two). INTERPRETATION: The efficacy and safety of bilateral infusion of AAV2-GAD in the subthalamic nucleus supports its further development for Parkinson's disease and shows the promise for gene therapy for neurological disorders. FUNDING: Neurologix.

Primary study

Unclassified

Single, intra-articular treatment with 6 ml hylan G-F 20 in patients with symptomatic primary osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

Journal Annals of the rheumatic diseases
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 19 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (19 references)

Loading references information
Objectives: The primary objective was to compare a single, 6 ml, intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 with placebo in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The safety of a repeat injection of hylan G-F 20 was also assessed. Methods: Patients with primary osteoarthritis knee pain were randomly assigned to arthrocentesis plus a 6 ml intra-articular injection of either hylan G-F 20 or placebo in a prospective, double-blind (one injector/one blinded observer) study. Results were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, 18 and 26 weeks post-injection. The primary outcome criterion was change from baseline over 26 weeks in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index A pain. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC A1 and C, patient global assessment (PGA) and clinical observer global assessment (COGA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder rates. A 4-week, open, repeat treatment phase evaluated safety only. Results: A total of 253 patients (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III) was randomly assigned. Patients receiving hylan G-F 20 experienced statistically significantly greater improvements in WOMAC A pain scores (20.15, SE 0.076, p = 0.047), and several of the secondary outcome measures (WOMAC A1, PGA and COGA), than patients receiving placebo. There was no difference between the safety results of the two groups. No increased risk of local adverse events was observed in the open, repeat treatment phase. Conclusions: This placebo-controlled study demonstrated that, in patients with knee osteoarthritis, a single 6 ml intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 is safe and effective in providing statistically significant, clinically relevant pain relief over 26 weeks, with a modest difference versus placebo. Trial registration number: NCT00131352.

Primary study

Unclassified

Gene delivery of AAV2-neurturin for Parkinson's disease: A double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

blocked
Journal The Lancet. Neurology
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 4 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (4 references)

Loading references information
Background: In an open-label phase 1 trial, gene delivery of the trophic factor neurturin via an adeno-associated type-2 vector (AAV2) was well tolerated and seemed to improve motor function in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of AAV2-neurturin in a double-blind, phase 2 randomised trial. Methods: We did a multicentre, double-blind, sham-surgery controlled trial in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by a central, computer generated, randomisation code to receive either AAV2-neurturin (5·4×1011 vector genomes) injected bilaterally into the putamen or sham surgery. All patients and study personnel with the exception of the neurosurgical team were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to 12 months in the motor subscore of the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale in the practically-defined off state. All randomly assigned patients who had at least one assessment after baseline were included in the primary analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00400634. Results: Between December, 2006, and November, 2008, 58 patients from nine sites in the USA participated in the trial. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint in patients treated with AAV2-neurturin compared with control individuals (difference -0·31 [SE 2·63], 95% CI -5·58 to 4·97; p=0·91). Serious adverse events occurred in 13 of 38 patients treated with AAV2-neurturin and four of 20 control individuals. Three patients in the AAV2-neurturin group and two in the sham surgery group developed tumours. Interpretation: Intraputaminal AAV2-neurturin is not superior to sham surgery when assessed using the UPDRS motor score at 12 months. However, the possibility of a benefit with additional targeting of the substantia nigra and longer term follow-up should be investigated in further studies. Funding: Ceregene and Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Primary study

Unclassified

A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures

Journal The New England journal of medicine
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 10 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (10 references) 1 Structured summary of primary studies Structured summaries of primary studies (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Vertebroplasty is commonly used to treat painful, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 131 patients who had one to three painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures to undergo either vertebroplasty or a simulated procedure without cement (control group). The primary outcomes were scores on the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (on a scale of 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating greater disability) and patients' ratings of average pain intensity during the preceding 24 hours at 1 month (on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe pain). Patients were allowed to cross over to the other study group after 1 month. RESULTS: All patients underwent the assigned intervention (68 vertebroplasties and 63 simulated procedures). The baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. At 1 month, there was no significant difference between the vertebroplasty group and the control group in either the RDQ score (difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to 2.8; P = 0.49) or the pain rating (difference, 0.7; 95% CI, -0.3 to 1.7; P = 0.19). Both groups had immediate improvement in disability and pain scores after the intervention. Although the two groups did not differ significantly on any secondary outcome measure at 1 month, there was a trend toward a higher rate of clinically meaningful improvement in pain (a 30% decrease from baseline) in the vertebroplasty group (64% vs. 48%, P = 0.06). At 3 months, there was a higher crossover rate in the control group than in the vertebroplasty group (43% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There was one serious adverse event in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in pain and pain-related disability associated with osteoporotic compression fractures in patients treated with vertebroplasty were similar to the improvements in a control group. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068822.) Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Primary study

Unclassified

A randomized double-blind controlled trial of intra-annular radiofrequency thermal disc therapy - A 12-month follow-up

Journal Pain
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 4 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (4 references)

Loading references information
The discTRODE™ probe applies radiofrequency (RF) current, heating the annulus to treat chronic discogenic low back pain. Randomized controlled studies have not been published. We assessed the long-term effect and safety aspects of percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation (PIRFT) with the discTRODE™ probe in a prospective parallel, randomized and gender stratified, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Twenty selected patients with chronic low back pain and a positive one-level pressure-controlled provocation discography were randomized to either intra-annular PIRFT or intra-annular sham treatment. A blinded interim analysis was performed when 20 patients had been followed for six months. The 6-month analysis did not reveal any trend towards overall effect or difference between active and sham treatment for the primary endpoint: change in pain intensity (0-10). The inclusion of patients was therefore discontinued. After 12 months the overall reduction from baseline pain had reached statistical significance, but there was no significant difference between the groups. The functional outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index, and SF 36 subscales and the relative change in pain) appeared more promising, but did not reach statistical significance when compared with sham treatment. Two actively treated and two sham-treated patients reported increased pain levels, and in both groups a higher number was unemployed after 12 months. The study did not find evidence for a benefit of PIRFT, although it cannot rule out a moderate effect. Considering the high number, reporting increased pain in our study, we would not recommend intra-annular thermal therapy with the discTRODE™ probe. © 2009 International Association for the Study of Pain.

Primary study

Unclassified

A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Journal The New England journal of medicine
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 11 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (11 references) 2 Structured summaries of primary studies Structured summaries of primary studies (2 references) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Vertebroplasty has become a common treatment for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, but there is limited evidence to support its use. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which participants with one or two painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures that were of less than 12 months' duration and unhealed, as confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, were randomly assigned to undergo vertebroplasty or a sham procedure. Participants were stratified according to treatment center, sex, and duration of symptoms (<6 weeks or ≥6 weeks). Outcomes were assessed at 1 week and at 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was overall pain (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the maximum imaginable pain) at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 78 participants were enrolled, and 71 (35 of 38 in the vertebroplasty group and 36 of 40 in the placebo group) completed the 6-month follow-up (91%). Vertebroplasty did not result in a significant advantage in any measured outcome at any time point. There were significant reductions in overall pain in both study groups at each follow-up assessment. At 3 months, the mean (±SD) reductions in the score for pain in the vertebroplasty and control groups were 2.6±2.9 and 1.9±3.3, respectively (adjusted between-group difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 1.8). Similar improvements were seen in both groups with respect to pain at night and at rest, physical functioning, quality of life, and perceived improvement. Seven incident vertebral fractures (three in the vertebroplasty group and four in the placebo group) occurred during the 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We found no beneficial effect of vertebroplasty as compared with a sham procedure in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, at 1 week or at 1, 3, or 6 months after treatment. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN012605000079640.) Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.