ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022
Guidelines for composing and assessing a paper on the treatment of pain: A practical application of evidence-based medicine principles to a cost-effectiveness analysis of the MINT randomized clinical trials.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Statement: Restorative Neurostimulation for Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain Resulting From Neuromuscular Instability.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Apply established principles of evidence-based medicine to the interpretation of the cost-effectiveness analysis related to the MINT Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). Design: Editorial. Methods: Spine Intervention Society's guidelines for assessing studies on the treatment of pain were applied to a published cost-effectiveness analysis of radiofrequency denervation data from the MINT RCTs. Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles reveals the MINT RCTs' major deficiencies in patient selection, diagnostic paradigm, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up; which marginalizes the generalizability and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions: The cost analysis performed in "Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Denervation for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The MINT Randomized Clinical Trials" is based on the MINT RCTs results. The MINT RCTs significant metholodological design flaws, lead to issues in validty for the subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis. Application of the cost-effective analysis to patient care paradigms should be limited given the concerns with validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.