ArticleInterventional pain medicine2024
Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature. Objective: To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results. Study design: Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018-December 31, 2022. Patient sample: Not applicable. Methods: Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors' own conclusions about their work. Results: Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88-94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27-81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91-99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96-100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75-95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96-100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44-76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94-98 %]). Conclusions: Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.
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.