No evidence for intervention-dependent influence of methodological features on treatment effect

Performance, Detection, Contamination, Compliance, and Cointervention Biases in Rehabilitation Research: What Are They and How Can They Affect the Results of Randomized Controlled Trials? Basic Information for Junior Researchers and Clinicians

ABSTRACT

Bias is a systematic error that can cause distorted results leading to incorrect conclusions. Intervention bias (i.e., contamination bias, cointervention bias, compliance bias, and performance bias) and detection bias are the most common biases in rehabilitation research. A better understanding of these biases is essential at all stages of research to enhance the quality of evidence in rehabilitation trials. Therefore, this narrative review aims to provide insights to the readers, clinicians, and researchers about contamination, cointervention, compliance, performance, and detection biases and ways of recognizing and mitigating them. The literature selected for this review was obtained mainly by compiling the information from several reviews looking at biases in rehabilitation. In addition, separate searches by biases and looking at reference lists of selected studies as well as using Scopus forward citation for relevant references were used.This review provides several strategies to guard against the impact of bias on study results. Clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to apply these recommendations when designing and conducting rehabilitation trials.

The Effectiveness of Different Concepts of Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brace treatment is the most common noninvasive treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS); however it is currently not fully known whether there is a difference in effectiveness between brace types/concepts. All studies on brace treatment for AIS were searched for in PubMed and EMBASE up to January 2021. Articles that did not report on maturity of the study population were excluded. Critical appraisal was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool (MINORS). Brace concepts were distinguished in prescribed wearing time and rigidity of the brace: full-time, part-time, and night-time, rigid braces and soft braces. In the meta-analysis, success was defined as ≤5° curve progression during follow-up. Of the 33 selected studies, 11 papers showed high risk of bias. The rigid full-time brace had on average a success rate of 73.2% (95% CI 61-86%), night-time of 78.7% (72-85%), soft braces of 62.4% (55-70%), observation only of 50% (44-56%). There was insufficient evidence on part-time wear for the meta-analysis. The majority of brace studies have significant risk of bias. No significant difference in outcome between the night-time or full-time concepts could be identified. Soft braces have a lower success rate compared to rigid braces. Bracing for scoliosis in Risser 0-2 and 0-3 stage of maturation appeared most effective.

Patients Cannot Reliably Distinguish the Iliac Crest Bone Graft Donor Site From the Contralateral Side After Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter, randomized, intrapatient controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether lumbar fusion patients blinded to the harvest site (A) can identify the iliac crest used for bone harvesting and (B) whether this iliac crest is more painful than the contralateral side.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal fusion with iliac crest autograft is a frequently performed surgical procedure. A widely reported disadvantage of the harvesting procedure is potential donor site morbidity. This has driven the development of many bone graft substitutes. However, more recently the incidence and severity of donor site pain is debated, especially in lumbar fusion surgery.

METHODS

Ninety-two nontraumatic adult patients underwent a posterolateral (thoraco)lumbar fusion. Iliac crest bone graft was harvested unilaterally through the primary midline incision. At 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year follow-up, patients were asked to identify the donor site and to rate pain in their back, left iliac crest and right iliac crest on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Ninety patients, 44 males and 46 females with a mean age of 54 years, were analyzed. The left/right distribution of the iliac crest donor site was 50/50 and 89% of the patients underwent a lumbar fusion below L3. Only 24% patients identified the harvest site correctly. Moreover, the VAS pain scores for the donor site and contralateral iliac crest did not differ and were at each timepoint lower than the scores for back pain.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that, during the first year after lumbar fusion surgery via a single midline incision approach, patients could not reliably identify the iliac crest used for bone graft harvesting and this iliac crest was not more painful than the untouched contralateral iliac crest. Therefore, donor site pain should not be the main reason to use bone graft alternatives for lumbar spinal fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence on the average bias and heterogeneity associated with reported methodological features of randomized trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies.

METHODS

We retrieved eligible studies included in a recent AHRQ-EPC review on this topic (latest search September 2012), and searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE for studies indexed from Jan 2012-May 2015. Data were extracted by one author and verified by another. We combined estimates of average bias (e.g. ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or difference in standardised mean differences (dSMD)) in meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Analyses were stratified by type of outcome ("mortality" versus "other objective" versus "subjective"). Direction of effect was standardised so that ROR < 1 and dSMD < 0 denotes a larger intervention effect estimate in trials with an inadequate or unclear (versus adequate) characteristic.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies. The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may be exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear (versus adequate) sequence generation (ROR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 7 studies) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; 7 studies). For these characteristics, the average bias appeared to be larger in trials of subjective outcomes compared with other objective outcomes. Also, intervention effects for subjective outcomes appear to be exaggerated in trials with lack of/unclear blinding of participants (versus blinding) (dSMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.04; 2 studies), lack of/unclear blinding of outcome assessors (ROR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 1 study) and lack of/unclear double blinding (ROR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; 1 study). The influence of other characteristics (e.g. unblinded trial personnel, attrition) is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain characteristics of randomized trials may exaggerate intervention effect estimates. The average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes. More research on several characteristics, particularly attrition and selective reporting, is needed.