Plener Joshua, da Silva-Oolup Sophia, To Daphne, Csiernik Ben, Hofkirchner Corey, Cox Jocelyn, Chow Ngai, Hogg-Johnson Sheilah, Ammendolia Carlo
Division of Graduate Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023 May 15;48(10):E132-E157. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004537. Epub 2022 Nov 10.
Systematic review.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants in randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing conservative management for cervical radiculopathy (CR), to determine if any consensus exists within the literature.
A 2012 systematic review identified a lack of uniformity for the eligibility criteria of participants in RCTs evaluating conservative interventions for CR. Since then, a large number of RCTs have been published, signaling the need for an updated evaluation of this topic.
We electronically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022, to identify RCTs assessing conservative management of CR. Information extracted was analyzed to determine the level of homogeneity and/or heterogeneity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria across studies.
Seventy-six RCTs met our inclusion criteria with 68 distinct trials identified. The inclusion of arm pain with or without another symptom ( i.e. numbness, paresthesia, or weakness) was required in 69.12% of trials, 50% of trials required participants to exhibit neck symptoms, and 73.53% of studies required some form of clinical examination findings, but inconsistencies existed for the number and type of tests used. Furthermore, 41.18% of trials included imaging, with 33.82% of trials requiring magnetic resonance imaging findings. The most common exclusion criteria included were the presence of red flags and cervical myelopathy in 66.18% and 58.82% of trials, respectively.
Overall, there is still a lack of uniformity for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of trials assessing the conservative management of CR, with some improvements noted compared with the 2012 review. Based on the current literature assessing the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms and confirmatory tests, we proposed inclusion criteria for trials assessing conservative interventions. Future research should aim to develop standardized classification criteria to improve consistency among studies.
系统评价。
本研究旨在评估评估神经根型颈椎病(CR)保守治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)中参与者的纳入和排除标准,以确定文献中是否存在共识。
2012年的一项系统评价发现,在评估CR保守干预措施的RCT中,参与者的纳入标准缺乏一致性。从那时起,大量的RCT已经发表,这表明需要对该主题进行更新的评估。
我们从数据库建立至2022年6月15日对MEDLINE、CENTRAL、CINAHL、Embase和PsycINFO进行了电子检索,以识别评估CR保守治疗的RCT。对提取的信息进行分析,以确定各研究中纳入和排除标准的同质性和/或异质性水平。
76项RCT符合我们的纳入标准,共识别出68项不同的试验。69.12%的试验要求纳入有或无其他症状(即麻木、感觉异常或无力)的手臂疼痛,50%的试验要求参与者表现出颈部症状,73.53%的研究要求有某种形式的临床检查结果,但所使用的检查数量和类型存在不一致。此外,41.18%的试验纳入了影像学检查,33.82%的试验要求有磁共振成像结果。最常见的排除标准分别是66.18%的试验中存在警示信号和58.82%的试验中存在颈椎脊髓病。
总体而言,评估CR保守治疗的试验的纳入/排除标准仍然缺乏一致性,与2012年的综述相比有一些改进。基于目前评估临床症状和确证检查诊断效用的文献,我们提出了评估保守干预措施的试验的纳入标准。未来的研究应旨在制定标准化的分类标准,以提高研究之间的一致性。