• Spine · Feb 2008

    Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Examining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: comparing results of randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions for low back pain.

    • Andrea D Furlan, George Tomlinson, Alejandro Alex R Jadad, and Claire Bombardier.
    • Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Canada. afurlan@iwh.on.ca
    • Spine. 2008 Feb 1;33(3):339-48.

    Study DesignLiterature review.ObjectiveTo assess the influence of various factors in statistical heterogeneity of meta-analyses of interventions for low back pain. One of these factors was study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus nonrandomized study (NRS).Summary Of Background DataThe presence of statistical heterogeneity poses a challenge to the conduct and interpretation of meta-analyses.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to May 2005 for comparative studies of interventions for low back pain. The interventions with the highest number of NRSs were selected. All NRSs and RCTs of the same interventions were combined using meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed according to study design and other factors that were selected by a panel of 20 experts.ResultsNRSs frequently either agree with RCTs or underestimate the effects compared with RCTs. The interventions and the respective factors that explained statistical heterogeneity were a) surgery versus conservative treatments (17 NRSs and 8 RCTs): study design (odds ratio, OR: 1.56 and 4.69 for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively), pain duration (OR: 1.75 and 3.55 for chronic and acute, respectively), and involvement of workers' compensation (OR: 1.85 and 5.07, with and without, respectively); b) surgery with fusion versus surgery without fusion (17 NRSs and 3 RCTs): spondylolisthesis (OR: 2.15 and 1.22, with and without, respectively); c) Instrumented fusion versus noninstrumented fusion (15 NRSs and 8 RCTs): previous surgery (OR: 2.89 and 1.36, with and without, respectively) and levels fused (OR: 1.50 and 2.98, single and multilevel, respectively).ConclusionComparisons between RCTs and NRSs may be influenced by various factors, including study design. However, other factors were more powerful explanatory variables than study design. These factors included pain duration, involvement of workers' compensation, presence of spondylolisthesis, previous surgery, and levels fused.

      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.