SynthesisBMJ open2026
Challenges in conducting an individual participant data meta-analysis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with (sub)acute low back pain: a systematic review and report on data availability.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe planned to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to investigate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared with placebo in patients with (sub)acute low back pain (LBP). This report describes the challenges encountered in conducting this IPD-MA and their implications.
designA systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline ALL, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through January 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane review on NSAIDs for (sub)acute LBP and trials identified through the aforementioned data sources. We compared NSAIDs (regardless of administration route) to placebo on effectiveness outcomes. Our primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical functioning and health-related quality of life at 1-, 3- and 12-week follow-ups, with secondary outcomes including adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened and included eligible studies. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool 2. Original authors of included RCTs were contacted based on a hierarchy: Corresponding > First > Last > Other authors via email, social media or institution. For contributors, we requested their study protocol, codebook and IPD, and provided our data-sharing agreement and transfer protocol. One-stage IPD-MA was planned with a generalised linear mixed model.
resultsWe identified 10 RCTs. Seven authors responded, but only one author agreed to share IPD. Data were unavailable or lost due to the age of the trials, dissolution of research departments, lack of records by sponsoring companies, market withdrawal of the studied drug, or contractual restrictions on data sharing. Two RCTs had a 'low' overall RoB, four had 'some concerns' and four had 'high'. With only one IPD set obtained, the planned IPD-MA could not be conducted.
conclusionsThis IPD-MA on NSAIDs for (sub)acute LBP could not be completed due to challenges in data acquisition. In future IPD research, researchers should focus on clearer rationale, recent RCTs, improved data-sharing and storing practices.
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.