header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Spine
Include Proceedings
Access
Journals
Abstracts
Dates
Year From
Year To
Specialties
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 29 - 29
1 Feb 2018
A CORE OUTCOME MEASUREMENT SET FOR LOW BACK PAIN CLINICAL TRIALS
Chiarotto A Boers M Deyo R Buchbinder R Corbin T Costa L Foster N Grotle M Koes B Kovacs F Lin C Maher C Pearson A Peul W Schoene M Turk D van Tulder M Terwee C Ostelo R
Full Access
View article

Background & purpose

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.

Methods & Results

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 a-priori set at 67% of participants agreeing on endorsing an instrument. Two Delphi rounds were run (response rates = 44% and 41%). Agreement was reached on endorsing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2.1a) for physical functioning, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity, but not on other instruments. Several participants demanded to have free of charge core instruments. Taking these results into account, the steering committee formulated the following recommendations: ODI 2.1a or 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, Short-Form 12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health for HRQoL.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 24 - 24
1 Feb 2014
SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR SCIATICA: A SYSTEMATIC OVERVIEW
Jacobs W Peul W Rubinstein S Koes B van Tulder M
Full Access
View article

Purposes of the study and background

The objective of this overview was to evaluate the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for sciatica due to disc herniation. The last search was conducted in 2011. Since then new reviews have been published or existing reviews have been updated.

Summary of the methods used and results

A comprehensive search was performed in multiple databases including Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Pubmed. Included are Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on sciatica due to disc herniation published in peer-reviewed journals. We evaluated surgery versus conservative care and different surgical techniques compared to one another. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR by two independent reviewers. Nine, mostly high quality, systematic reviews on surgical interventions for disc herniation were included. Four reviews compared surgery with conservative treatment and concluded consistently that surgery has only short term benefits while the long term results showed no difference in effect. Four reviews compared open discectomy with micro(endo)scopic discectomy and found no significant and/or clinically relevant differences. The quality of evidence on alternative minimal invasive techniques (laser discectomy, automated percutaneous discectomy, and nucleoplasty or coblation) is consistently low in four recent reviews.