• Spine J · Nov 2013

    Review

    Twenty-year perspective of randomized controlled trials for surgery of chronic nonspecific low back pain: citation bias and tangential knowledge.

    • Nicholas S Andrade, John P Flynn, and Viktor Bartanusz.
    • Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA.
    • Spine J. 2013 Nov 1;13(11):1698-704.

    Background ContextAfter decades of clinical research, the role of surgery for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) remains equivocal. Despite significant intellectual, human, and economic investments into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the past two decades, the role of surgery in the treatment for CNLBP has not been clarified.PurposeTo delineate the historical research agenda of surgical RCTs for CNLBP performed between 1993 and 2012 investigating whether conclusions from earlier published trials influenced the choice of research questions of subsequent RCTs on elucidating the role of surgery in the management of CNLBP.Study DesignLiterature review.MethodsWe searched the literature for all RCTs involving surgery for CNLBP. We reviewed relevant studies to identify the study question, comparator arms, and sample size. Randomized controlled trials were classified as "indication" trials if they evaluated the effectiveness of surgical therapy versus nonoperative care or as "technical" if they compared different surgical techniques, adjuncts, or procedures. We used citation analysis to determine the impact of trials on subsequent research in the field.ResultsAltogether 33 technical RCTs (3,790 patients) and 6 indication RCTs (981 patients) have been performed. Since 2007, despite the unclear benefits of surgery reported by the first four indication trials published in 2001 to 2006, technical trials have continued to predominate (16 vs. 2). Of the technical trials, types of instrumentation (13 trials, 1,332 patients), bone graft materials and substitutes (11 trials, 833 patients), and disc arthroplasty versus fusion (5 trials, 1,337 patients) were the most common comparisons made. Surgeon authors have predominantly cited one of the indication trials that reported more favorable results for surgery, despite a lack of superior methodology or sample size. Trials evaluating bone morphogenic protein, instrumentation, and disc arthroplasty were all cited more frequently than the largest trial of surgical versus nonsurgical therapy.ConclusionsThe research agenda of RCTs for surgery of CNLBP has not changed substantially in the last 20 years. Technical trials evaluating nuances of surgical techniques significantly predominate. Despite the publication of four RCTs reporting equivocal benefits of surgery for CNLBP between 2001 and 2006, there was no change in the research agenda of subsequent RCTs, and technical trials continued to outnumber indication trials. Rather than clarifying what, if any, indications for surgery exist, investigators in the field continue to analyze variations in surgical technique, which will probably have relatively little impact on patient outcomes. As a result, clinicians unfortunately have little evidence to advise patients regarding surgical intervention for CNLBP.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.