Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions.Background
Objectives
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
The available treatments for NSLBP (Non-Specific Low Back Pain) provide, typically, small to moderate average benefits to patients. The aim of this pilot cluster RCT was to test the hypothesis that the use of a patient decision aid together with an informed shared decision making consultation would produce better outcomes in satisfaction with treatment at four month follow-up. We developed a DSP (Decision Support Package). We randomised the physiotherapists and trained those in the intervention arm in informed shared decision making and communication. Participants were recruited from a local physiotherapy department and those allocated to an appointment with an intervention therapist were sent a copy of the DSP in the post. Participants then attended their appointment as usual.Background
Methods
To review systematically review literature on the early diagnosis of spinal metastases and prediction of spinal cord compression (SCC) due to spinal metastases From 13 electronic bibliographic databases were searched we identified 2,425 potentially relevant articles of which 31 met the inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised. Seventeen studies reported retrospective data, 10 were prospective studies, and three were other study designs. There was one systematic review. There were no randomised controlled trials. There were approximately 7,900 participants in the included studies and 5,782 participants were analysed. The sample sizes ranged from 41 to 859. Cancers reported were: lung alone (n=3); prostate alone (n=6); breast alone (n=7); mixed cancers (n=13); and unclear (n=1). Ninety-three prognostic factors were identified as potentially significant in predicting risk of SCC or collapse. Many of the included studies provided limited information about patient population and selection criteria and they varied in methodological quality, rigour and transparency. Several studies with mixed case populations identified type of cancer (e.g. breast, lung or prostate cancer) as a significant factor in predicting SCC, but determining the risk differential is difficult because of residual bias in studies. Overall the quality of the research was poor. The only predictors identified for SCC were number of spinal metastases, duration of disease, total disease burden and immediate symptomatology of cord involvement.Study Purpose
Methods and results
We have developed a LBP (low back pain) repository with IPD (individual patient data) from therapist-delivered intervention RCT's from various institutions, nationally and internationally (19 trials, 9328 patients). We will perform IPD meta-analyses to identify and determine the most effective and cost-effective treatments for subgroups of patients. Disability due to LBP is a key outcome of interest. However, there was no common disability measurement that was used in all the RCT's. We report here our assessment as to whether different disability measures are sufficiently comparable to allow pooling across trials. We used data from seven trials (n = 5015 patients) that had at least two of the following measurements: RMDQ (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), MVK (Modified Von Korff disability score), physical component scale of SF-12/36, Patient Specific Functional Scale, and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire. Within each trial, the change score between baseline and short-term follow-up was computed. These change scores were then converted from one outcome measure to another with linear regression and ridge-reroughed linear models. They were also tested for correlation and responsiveness (the ability to detect changes in condition, measured by standardised response means).Background
Method
