A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption. METHODS: 104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.

Norepinephrine-induced hypertension dilates vasospastic basilar artery after subarachnoid haemorrhage in rabbits

BACKGROUND: Vasopressor-induced hypertension is routinely indicated for prevention and treatment of cerebral vasospasm (CVS) after subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). Mechanisms underlying patients' clinical improvement during vasopressor-induced hypertension remain incompletely understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate angiographic effects of normovolaemic Norepinephrine (NE)-induced hypertension therapy on the rabbit basilar artery (BA) after SAH. METHODS: Cerebral vasospasm was induced using the one-haemorrhage rabbit model; sham-operated animals served as controls. Five days later the animals underwent follow-up angiography prior to and during NE-induced hypertension. Changes in diameter of the BA were digitally calculated in mean microm +/- SEM (standard error of mean). FINDINGS: Significant CVS of 14.2% was documented in the BA of the SAH animals on day 5 compared to the baseline angiogram on day 0 (n = 12, p < 0.01), whereas the BA of the control animals remained statistically unchanged (n = 12, p > 0.05). During systemic administration of NE, mean arterial pressure increased from 70.0 +/- 1.9 mmHg to 136.0 +/- 2.1 mmHg in the SAH group (n = 12, p < 0.001) and from 72.0 +/- 3.1 to 137.8 +/- 1.3 in the control group (n = 12, p < 0.001). On day 5 after SAH, a significant dilatation of the BA in response to norepinephrine could be demonstrated in both groups. The diameter of the BA in the SAH group increased from 640.5 +/- 17.5 microm to 722.5 +/- 23.7 microm (n = 12, p < 0.05; ). In the control group the diameter increased from 716.8 +/- 15.5 microm to 779.9 +/- 24.1 microm (n = 12, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that NE-induced hypertension causes angiographic dilatation of the BA in the SAH rabbit model. Based on these observations, it can be hypothesised that clinical improvement during vasopressor-induced hypertension therapy after SAH might be explained with cerebral vasodilatation mechanisms that lead to improvement of cerebral blood flow.

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of adequate allocation concealment and patient blinding with estimates of treatment benefits in osteoarthritis trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-epidemiologic study of 16 meta-analyses with 175 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. We calculated effect sizes from the differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of followup divided by the pooled SD and compared effect sizes between trials with and trials without adequate methodology. RESULTS: Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 46 trials with adequate allocation concealment compared with 112 trials with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation (difference -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.31, 0.02). Selection bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation was most pronounced in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits (P for interaction < 0.001), meta-analyses with high between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.009), and meta-analyses of complementary medicine (P = 0.019). Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 64 trials with adequate blinding of patients compared with 58 trials without (difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.39, 0.09), but differences were less consistent and disappeared after accounting for allocation concealment. Detection bias associated with a lack of adequate patient blinding was most pronounced for nonpharmacologic interventions (P for interaction < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results of osteoarthritis trials may be affected by selection and detection bias. Adequate concealment of allocation and attempts to blind patients will minimize these biases.

Doxycycline for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a chronic joint disease that involves degeneration of articular cartilage. Pre-clinical data suggest that doxycycline might act as a disease-modifying agent for the treatment of osteoarthritis, with the potential to slow cartilage degeneration. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of doxycycline compared with placebo or no intervention on pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL ( The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 28 July 2008, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared doxycycline at any dosage and any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated differences in means at follow-up between experimental and control groups for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for binary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We found one randomised controlled trial that compared doxycycline with placebo in 431 obese women. After 30 months of treatment, clinical outcomes were similar between the two treatment groups, with a mean difference of -0.20 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.77 to 0.37 cm) on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 10 cm for pain and -1.10 units (95% CI -3.86 to 1.66) for function on the WOMAC disability subscale, which ranges from 17 to 85. These differences correspond to clinically irrelevant effect sizes of -0.08 and -0.09 standard deviation units for pain and function, respectively. The difference in changes in minimum joint space narrowing was in favour of doxycycline (-0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02 mm), which corresponds to a small effect size of -0.23 standard deviation units. More patients withdrew from the doxycycline group compared with placebo due to adverse events (risk ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.75). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The symptomatic benefit of doxycycline is minimal to non-existent. The small benefit in terms of joint space narrowing is of questionable clinical relevance and outweighed by safety problems. Doxycycline should not be recommended for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

S-Adenosylmethionine for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of -0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 = 54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event, and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of 1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant. No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative risks for safety outcomes and used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. The analysis of pain was based on predicted estimates from meta-regression using the standard error as explanatory variable. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified 14 additional trials resulting in the inclusion of 18 small trials in 813 patients. Eleven trials used TENS, four interferential current stimulation, one both TENS and interferential current stimulation, and two pulsed electrostimulation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 80%) was revealed. The funnel plot for pain was asymmetrical (P < 0.001). The predicted SMD of pain intensity in trials as large as the largest trial was -0.07 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.32), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between electrostimulation and control of 0.2 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. There was little evidence that SMDs differed on the type of electrostimulation (P = 0.94). The relative risk of being withdrawn or dropping out due to adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.2 to 6.0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we could not confirm that transcutaneous electrostimulation is effective for pain relief. The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of only small trials of questionable quality. Appropriately designed trials of adequate power are warranted.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.