Research waste in randomised trials of exercise treatments for chronic low back pain: trial sequential and cumulative meta-analyses by publication date and size.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Flora Chamberlain, Louise Elliott, Amin Yarahmadi, Martin Underwood
{"title":"Research waste in randomised trials of exercise treatments for chronic low back pain: trial sequential and cumulative meta-analyses by publication date and size.","authors":"Flora Chamberlain, Louise Elliott, Amin Yarahmadi, Martin Underwood","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if there is research waste in controlled trials of exercise therapies compared with usual care/no treatment for adults with chronic non-specific lower back pain.</p><p><strong>Design and data sources: </strong>Secondary analysis of previously published systematic review (Cochrane review).</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled trials comparing exercise treatments for chronic low back pain to usual care/no treatment eligible for inclusion in the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise interventions for chronic low back pain.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>All data were taken from the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise therapy for chronic lower back pain and the UK BEAM trial. We did trial-sequential meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analyses, exploring changes in effect estimates over time and by trial size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respective superiority boundaries for pain and disability were crossed in 2004 after four and five trials (n=358/415) were published. A further 43 trials with 2626 participants were included in the Cochrane review. In 2004, the mean effect sizes for pain and disability were -12.85 (95% CI -24.89 to -0.81) and -6.67 (95% CI -11.27 to 3.36), respectively; similar to those reported by Cochrane in 2021. Including small trials substantially affected effect size estimates. When the 33 and 36 trials, respectively, with fewer than 70 participants are excluded, the limits of the 95% CIs for effect size estimates exclude the clinically important differences ((pain; -8.8 (95% CI -11.38 to -5.63): disability -4.27 (95% CI -6.12 to -2.24).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It may be difficult to justify any further trials comparing exercise interventions to usual care/no treatment for chronic low back pain. The inclusion of small studies in meta-analyses has produced biased results in previous meta-analyses. Exercise treatments might not have a clinically important effect on people with chronic low back pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 3","pages":"e087787"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11938220/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087787","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine if there is research waste in controlled trials of exercise therapies compared with usual care/no treatment for adults with chronic non-specific lower back pain.

Design and data sources: Secondary analysis of previously published systematic review (Cochrane review).

Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing exercise treatments for chronic low back pain to usual care/no treatment eligible for inclusion in the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise interventions for chronic low back pain.

Data extraction and synthesis: All data were taken from the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise therapy for chronic lower back pain and the UK BEAM trial. We did trial-sequential meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analyses, exploring changes in effect estimates over time and by trial size.

Results: Respective superiority boundaries for pain and disability were crossed in 2004 after four and five trials (n=358/415) were published. A further 43 trials with 2626 participants were included in the Cochrane review. In 2004, the mean effect sizes for pain and disability were -12.85 (95% CI -24.89 to -0.81) and -6.67 (95% CI -11.27 to 3.36), respectively; similar to those reported by Cochrane in 2021. Including small trials substantially affected effect size estimates. When the 33 and 36 trials, respectively, with fewer than 70 participants are excluded, the limits of the 95% CIs for effect size estimates exclude the clinically important differences ((pain; -8.8 (95% CI -11.38 to -5.63): disability -4.27 (95% CI -6.12 to -2.24).

Conclusions: It may be difficult to justify any further trials comparing exercise interventions to usual care/no treatment for chronic low back pain. The inclusion of small studies in meta-analyses has produced biased results in previous meta-analyses. Exercise treatments might not have a clinically important effect on people with chronic low back pain.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
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