Suppr超能文献

脊柱手法治疗腰背痛和颈痛试验的偏倚风险及样本量:分析与建议

The risk of bias and sample size of trials of spinal manipulative therapy for low back and neck pain: analysis and recommendations.

作者信息

Rubinstein Sidney M, van Eekelen Rik, Oosterhuis Teddy, de Boer Michiel R, Ostelo Raymond W J G, van Tulder Maurits W

机构信息

Senior Researcher, Department of Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

MSc Student, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 Oct;37(8):523-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.07.007. Epub 2014 Sep 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in methodological quality and sample size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for neck and low back pain over a specified period. A secondary purpose was to make recommendations for improvement for future SMT trials based upon our findings.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of SMT in adults with neck and/or low back pain and reported at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure were included. Studies were identified from recent Cochrane reviews of SMT, and an update of the literature was conducted (March 2013). Risk of bias was assessed using the 12-item criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. In addition, sample size was examined. The relationship between the overall risk of bias and sample size over time was evaluated using regression analyses, and RCTs were grouped into periods (epochs) of approximately 5 years.

RESULTS

In total, 105 RCTs were included, of which 41 (39%) were considered to have a low risk of bias. There is significant improvement in the mean risk of bias over time (P < .05), which is the most profound for items related to selection bias and, to a lesser extent, attrition and selective outcome reporting bias. Furthermore, although there is no significant increase in sample size over time (overall P = .8), the proportion of studies that performed an a priori sample size calculation is increasing statistically (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.5-3.0). Sensitivity analyses suggest no appreciable difference between studies for neck or low back pain for risk of bias or sample size.

CONCLUSION

Methodological quality of RCTs of SMT for neck and low back pain is improving, whereas overall sample size has shown only small and nonsignificant increases. There is an increasing trend among studies to conduct sample size calculations, which relate to statistical power. Based upon these findings, 7 areas of improvement for future SMT trials are suggested.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估特定时期内,针对颈部和下背部疼痛的脊柱推拿疗法(SMT)随机对照试验(RCT)的方法学质量和样本量变化。次要目的是根据我们的研究结果,为未来的SMT试验改进提出建议。

方法

纳入研究SMT对成人颈部和/或下背部疼痛影响且报告了至少一项患者报告结局指标的随机对照试验。从最近的SMT Cochrane综述中识别研究,并进行文献更新(2013年3月)。使用Cochrane背部综述小组推荐的12项标准评估偏倚风险。此外,检查样本量。使用回归分析评估偏倚总体风险与样本量随时间的关系,并将RCT分为约5年的时间段(时期)。

结果

总共纳入105项RCT,其中41项(39%)被认为偏倚风险较低。随着时间的推移,偏倚平均风险有显著改善(P <.05),这在与选择偏倚相关的项目中最为显著,在较小程度上也体现在损耗和选择性结局报告偏倚方面。此外,虽然样本量随时间没有显著增加(总体P =.8),但进行预先样本量计算的研究比例在统计学上有所增加(优势比,2.1;置信区间,1.5 - 3.0)。敏感性分析表明,针对颈部或下背部疼痛的研究在偏倚风险或样本量方面没有明显差异。

结论

针对颈部和下背部疼痛的SMT RCT的方法学质量正在提高,而总体样本量仅显示出微小且不显著的增加。研究中进行样本量计算的趋势在增加,这与统计效力相关。基于这些发现,为未来的SMT试验提出了7个改进领域。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验