Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503666›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Trevor Thompson, Sofia Dias, Damian Poulter, Sharon Weldon, Lucy Marsh, Claire Rossato, Jae Il Shin, Joseph Firth, Nicola Veronese, Elena Dragioti and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Trevor ThompsonSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, UK. t.thompson@gre.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9880-782X
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Damian PoulterSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, UK.
Sharon WeldonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, SE9 2UG, UK.
Lucy MarshSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, UK.
Claire RossatoSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, UK.
Jae Il ShinDepartment of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joseph FirthNICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Nicola VeroneseNational Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Aging Branch, Padova, Italy.
Elena DragiotiPain and Rehabilitation Centre and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Brendon StubbsKing's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Marco SolmiNeurosciences Department, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Christopher G MaherSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, Biomedical Science and Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
University of Greenwich · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBKing's College London · GBLinköping University · SENeuroscience Institute · ITOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBProtein Metrics (United States) · USThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of York · GBYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions.

methodsWe will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. DISCUSSION: While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAdultBayes TheoremExerciseHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicLow back painNetwork meta-analysisProtocolRandomized controlled trialSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32503666
PMCPMC7275431
OpenAlexW3033067430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.