Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Sciatica: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses

Background There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together. Purpose To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously. Study design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews, for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme; there are no potential conflict of interests. Results Of 122 relevant studies, 90 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, non-opioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain reduction as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, non-opioids, and opioids, or radiofrequency treatment. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy and radiofrequency treatment were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal. Conclusions For the first time many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of non-opioid medication, epidural injections and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not support the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge

How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of ‘completely recovered’. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research