Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms.Background
Methods
Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items).Background
Methods
A 2011 Cochrane review concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is no better than other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Using individual participant data (IPD) from trials has advantages, among others: a more precise estimate of the effect and the potential to identify moderators. Our objective was to assess the effect of SMT in adults with CLBP and to identify relevant moderators. All trials from the 2011 Cochrane review were included in this IPD. We updated the search (April 2016) IPD from eligible studies was requested. Primary outcomes were pain intensity (VAS/NRS) and back-specific function (RMDQ). Risk of bias was assessed. For the treatment effect, an one-stage approach (mixed model technique, intention-to-treat principle) was used; a second-stage approach was conducted as confirmation. For the moderator analyses, one-stage approach was conducted for 19 variables.Purpose of the study and background
Methods
Measurement inconsistency across clinical trials is tackled by the development of a core outcome measurement set. Four core outcome domains were recommended for clinical trials in patients with non-specific LBP (nsLBP): physical functioning, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and number of deaths. This study aimed to reach consensus on core instruments to measure the first three domains. The Steering Committee overseeing this project selected 17 potential core instruments for physical functioning, three for pain intensity, and five for HRQoL. Evidence on their measurement properties in nsLBP was synthesized in three systematic reviews using COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 208) were invited in a Delphi survey to seek consensus on which instruments to endorse as core. Consensus was Background & purpose
Methods & Results
Inconsistent outcome reporting is a problematic issue in systematic reviews of clinical trials in non-specific LBP (NSLBP). To facilitate statistical pooling and improve reliability of reviews, the development of a core outcome set (COS) is recommended. In 1998, Deyo et al. proposed a standardized set of domains and measurement instruments for LBP clinical research. An international steering committee (ISC) was formed to update 1998 recommendations, and to determine, at first, which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. The ISC used the OMERACT framework 2.0 to draw a list of potential core domains. This list was presented in a 3-round Delphi survey, in which researchers, clinicians and patients were invited to participate. Criteria for consensus were established a-Background and purpose:
Methods:
