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.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.
RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.
CONCLUSIONS: The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.
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.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain, with or without radiculopathy, is an important cause of disability and economic expenditure. However, many patients are not achieving optimal pain control with existing medications. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNFα) could be an alternative drug treatment.
OBJECTIVES: Systematic review the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFα in the treatment of low back pain with or without radiculopathy.
STUDY DESIGN: Inclusion criteria were observational studies with safety as an outcome, and randomized or nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) studies on efficacy and/or safety of anti-TNFα drugs on low back pain. Exclusion criteria included patients with auto-immune conditions or osteoporosis.
RESULTS: Studies were assessed independently by 2 authors regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk of bias, clinical relevance, quality, and strength of evidence (GRADE approach). Of the 1,179 studies retrieved, all duplicates were excluded and then the inclusion/exclusion criteria was applied. One observational study (n = 143) and 11 RCTs remained (n = 539): 8 for etanercept (n = 304), one for adalimumab (n = 61), one for adalimumab and etanercept (n = 60), one for infliximab (n = 40) and one for REN-1654 (n = 74). Only 3 etanercept and 2 adalimumab studies showed statistically significant pain relief when compared to placebo. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse effects when comparing anti-TNF-α and placebo.
LIMITATIONS: Despite the statistically significant effect, this meta-analysis has important limitations, such as high heterogeneity and high use of outcome imputation.
CONCLUSIONS: There is low evidence that epidural etanercept has a low-to-moderate effect size when compared to placebo for pain due to discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n=185), with a standardized mean difference = -0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.84 to -0.02).There is moderate evidence that epidural etanercept does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n = 185) with a relative risk (RR) = 0.84 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.34).There is moderate evidence that anti-TNFα does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for low back pain (10 studies, n= 343) with an RR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.55).We strongly suggest that anti-TNFα continue to be studied in experimental settings for the treatment of low back pain. We cannot currently recommend this therapy in clinical practice. New research could shed some light on the efficacy of anti-TNFα and change this recommendation in the future.
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.
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.
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.
