BMJ Publications on Interventional Techniques Do Not Meet Appropriateness Criteria of Conducting a Rapid Review: A Comprehensive Review.

IF 2.5 2区医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY

Pain physician Pub Date : 2025-09-01

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Mahendra Sanapati, Amol Soin, Alan D Kaye, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Christopher G Gharibo, Allen Dennis, Joshua A Hirsch

{"title":"BMJ Publications on Interventional Techniques Do Not Meet Appropriateness Criteria of Conducting a Rapid Review: A Comprehensive Review.","authors":"Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Mahendra Sanapati, Amol Soin, Alan D Kaye, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Christopher G Gharibo, Allen Dennis, Joshua A Hirsch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A recent surge of publications on interventional techniques has questioned their effectiveness, based on a rapid review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. This was followed by releasing a clinical practice guideline recommending a global ban on these techniques. Understandably, such recommendations have raised significant concern worldwide. Interventional techniques are widely used in chronic pain management, yet their effectiveness has been debated, with longstanding concerns about overuse, misuse, fraud, and abuse.Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review and critical analysis of the BMJ rapid reviews and associated guidelines, with particular attention to the application-or absence-of basic appropriateness criteria published in the same journal, and the improper incorporation of such evidence into guideline recommendations.Methods: A review of the available literature was conducted to assess the appropriate criteria for rapid reviews and guideline development.Results: The absence of established appropriateness criteria led to an inadequately conducted rapid review and poorly developed guidelines. These, in turn, resulted in sweeping, globally applicable recommendations that lack a sound evidentiary basis.Conclusion: A thorough examination of BMJ publications and related literature demonstrates that the BMJ's rapid reviews and subsequent guidelines on interventional techniques fail to meet recognized appropriateness criteria for conducting rapid reviews and developing consequential clinical guidelines based on such reviews.","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"28 5","pages":"E467-E479"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A recent surge of publications on interventional techniques has questioned their effectiveness, based on a rapid review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. This was followed by releasing a clinical practice guideline recommending a global ban on these techniques. Understandably, such recommendations have raised significant concern worldwide. Interventional techniques are widely used in chronic pain management, yet their effectiveness has been debated, with longstanding concerns about overuse, misuse, fraud, and abuse.

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review and critical analysis of the BMJ rapid reviews and associated guidelines, with particular attention to the application-or absence-of basic appropriateness criteria published in the same journal, and the improper incorporation of such evidence into guideline recommendations.

Methods: A review of the available literature was conducted to assess the appropriate criteria for rapid reviews and guideline development.

Results: The absence of established appropriateness criteria led to an inadequately conducted rapid review and poorly developed guidelines. These, in turn, resulted in sweeping, globally applicable recommendations that lack a sound evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: A thorough examination of BMJ publications and related literature demonstrates that the BMJ's rapid reviews and subsequent guidelines on interventional techniques fail to meet recognized appropriateness criteria for conducting rapid reviews and developing consequential clinical guidelines based on such reviews.

本刊更多论文

英国医学杂志关于介入技术的出版物不符合进行快速审查的适当性标准：一项全面审查。

背景：基于随机试验的快速回顾和网络荟萃分析，最近大量关于介入技术的出版物质疑其有效性。随后发布了一份临床实践指南，建议在全球范围内禁止这些技术。可以理解的是，这些建议在全世界引起了重大关注。介入技术广泛应用于慢性疼痛治疗，但其有效性一直存在争议，长期以来人们一直担心过度使用、误用、欺诈和滥用。目的：对BMJ快速评论和相关指南进行全面回顾和批判性分析，特别关注在同一期刊上发表的基本适当性标准的应用或缺失，以及将这些证据不适当地纳入指南建议。方法：对现有文献进行回顾，以评估快速审查和指南制定的适当标准。结果：由于缺乏既定的适当性标准，导致了不充分的快速审查和不完善的指南。这反过来又产生了广泛的、全球适用的建议，但缺乏可靠的证据基础。结论：对BMJ出版物和相关文献的全面检查表明，BMJ的快速审查和随后的介入技术指南未能满足进行快速审查和基于此类审查制定相应临床指南的公认适当标准。

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

Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

21.60%

发文量

234

期刊介绍： Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.