• Zachary L McCormick, Yakov Vorobeychik, Jatinder S Gill, Kao Ming-Chih J MJ Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California., Belinda Duszynski, Matthew Smuck, and Milan P Stojanovic.
• Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
• Pain Med. 2018 Nov 1; 19 (11): 2127-2137.

ObjectiveTo perform a thorough assessment of the recently published Mint Trials in order to illustrate how to read and analyze a study critically, according to principles of evidence-based medicine.DesignNarrative review.MethodWe have applied the recently published guidelines for composing and assessing studies on the treatment of pain to a recently published article describing a large study that claimed its "findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain." These guidelines describe the critical components of a high-quality manuscript that allows communication of all relevant information from authors to readers.ResultsApplication of evidence-based medicine principles to the publication describing the Mint Trials reveals significant issues with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the authors. A thorough assessment demonstrates issues with inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnostic block protocols, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis, study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up. A failure to definitively establish a diagnosis, combined with use of an inadequate technique for radiofrequency neurotomy and numerous other methodological flaws, leaves the reader unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the study data.ConclusionsCritical analysis, rooted in principles of evidence-based medicine, must be employed by writers and readers alike in order to encourage transparency and ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn from study data.

13 keywords...

hide…