Suppr超能文献

牵引治疗颈肩痛的疗效:对随机临床试验方法的系统、盲法综述

The efficacy of traction for back and neck pain: a systematic, blinded review of randomized clinical trial methods.

作者信息

van der Heijden G J, Beurskens A J, Koes B W, Assendelft W J, de Vet H C, Bouter L M

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology, University of Limburg, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Phys Ther. 1995 Feb;75(2):93-104. doi: 10.1093/ptj/75.2.93.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic analysis of the literature to assess the efficacy of traction for patients with neck or back pain.

SUBJECTS

For this purpose, randomized clinical trials comparing traction with other treatments were selected.

METHODS

A computer-aided search of the literature was conducted for relevant articles, followed by blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. The main outcome measures were (1) scoring for quality of the designated conduct of studies (based on a methodological checklist with four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation) and the main conclusions of author(s) with regard to traction and (2) calculation of confidence intervals and power of the studies.

RESULTS

Only three studies scored more than 50 points (maximum score = 100 points), suggesting that most of the selected studies were of poor quality. None of these three studies showed favorable results for traction. Only four studies, of which one scored more than 50 points, had an acceptable power (1- beta > 80%).

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The available reports of studies on the efficacy of traction for back and neck pain do not allow clear conclusions due to the methodological flaws in their design and conduct. Most studies lacked power (1-beta) due to small sample sizes. To date, no conclusions can be drawn about whether a specific traction modality for back or neck pain is effective, or more efficacious than other treatments. There are no clear indications, however, that traction is an ineffective therapy for back and neck pain. Further trials are needed in which much more attention should be paid to proper design and conduct, as well as to clear descriptions of crucial methodological features and results.

摘要

背景与目的

本研究旨在对文献进行系统分析,以评估牵引疗法对颈痛或背痛患者的疗效。

研究对象

为此,选取了将牵引疗法与其他治疗方法进行比较的随机临床试验。

方法

通过计算机辅助检索文献以查找相关文章,随后对研究方法进行盲法评估。主要结局指标为:(1)对指定研究行为的质量评分(基于包含四个主要类别的方法学清单:研究人群、干预措施、疗效测量及数据呈现)以及作者关于牵引疗法的主要结论;(2)计算研究的置信区间和检验效能。

结果

仅有三项研究得分超过50分(满分 = 100分),这表明大多数所选研究质量较差。这三项研究均未显示牵引疗法有良好效果。仅有四项研究检验效能可接受(1-β>80%),其中一项得分超过50分。

结论与讨论

由于现有关于牵引疗法治疗颈痛和背痛疗效的研究报告在设计和实施上存在方法学缺陷,因此无法得出明确结论。大多数研究因样本量小而缺乏检验效能(1-β)。迄今为止,对于背痛或颈痛的特定牵引方式是否有效,或是否比其他治疗方法更有效,尚无定论。然而,也没有明确迹象表明牵引疗法对颈痛和背痛无效。需要进一步开展试验,且应更加注重合理的设计与实施,以及对关键方法学特征和结果的清晰描述。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验