Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Pm & R Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13142
Morgan R. Price, Kaelyn E. Mead, Diana M. Cowell, Alyssa M. Troutner, Tyler E. Barton, Sheryl A. Walters, Clinton J. Daniels
{"title":"Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines","authors":"Morgan R. Price, Kaelyn E. Mead, Diana M. Cowell, Alyssa M. Troutner, Tyler E. Barton, Sheryl A. Walters, Clinton J. Daniels","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline‐recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations.Literature SurveyLiterature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication.MethodologyThe review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre‐registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full‐text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality.SynthesisAfter screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full‐text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high‐quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.ConclusionsThe most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.","PeriodicalId":20287,"journal":{"name":"Pm & R","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pm & R","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline‐recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations.Literature SurveyLiterature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication.MethodologyThe review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre‐registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full‐text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality.SynthesisAfter screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full‐text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high‐quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.ConclusionsThe most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.
治疗腰骶神经根病的用药建议:临床实践指南系统回顾
目的本系统综述旨在确定指南推荐的治疗腰骶椎根性症状的药物方法,使用研究与评估指南评估工具 II (AGREE II) 评估临床实践指南 (CPG) 的质量,并对指南建议进行定性综合。文献调查我们在 PubMed、Cochrane 系统综述数据库、脊骨神经科文献索引、联合与补充医学数据库 (AMED)、护理与联合健康文献累积索引 (CINAHL) 和物理治疗证据数据库 (PEDro) 中进行了文献检索。我们纳入了2017年1月1日至2022年1月9日期间发表的、用英语撰写的、与根性神经病、坐骨神经痛和/或伴有腿痛的腰背痛相关的、并提供口服药物建议的指南。方法该综述根据系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行,并在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(PROSPERO)进行了预注册。资格筛选、全文审阅、提取与药物治疗相关的信息以及结果汇总由两位作者独立完成,并聘请第三位研究者对任何分歧进行仲裁。在筛选了 413 篇引文并评估了 37 篇全文后,有 11 篇 CPG 符合纳入标准。它们代表了七个国家(比利时、加拿大、英国、法国、日本、韩国和美国)和三大洲(亚洲、欧洲和北美洲),以及面向全球的全球脊柱护理计划。AGREE II 的平均总得分为 87.1%(标准差 [SD] 12.6%),普遍反映了高质量的 CPG。平均得分最高的领域是表述清晰度(96.7%,标准差 4.4%),最低的是适用性(75.6%,标准差 22.8%)。至少有一种 CPG 推荐了五类药物:抗惊厥药、抗抑郁药、口服皮质类固醇、非甾体抗炎药 (NSAID) 和阿片类药物。没有 CPG 建议处方对乙酰氨基酚、苯二氮卓、肌肉松弛剂或抗生素。各 CPG 之间的一致性非常低,所有类别的药物都至少有一份 CPG 建议不要使用。由于缺乏文献支持,有三份指南没有推荐任何药物,而是推荐了非药物疗法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信