Quality assessment of systematic reviews for surgical treatment of low back pain: an overview

Quality assessment of systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical spine degenerative diseases: an overview

Objective

To gather all systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases and assess their quality, conclusions and outcomes.

Methods

A literature search for systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases was conducted. Studies should have at least one surgical procedure as an intervention. Included studies were assessed for quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) questionnaires. Quality of studies was rated accordingly to their final score as very poor (<30%), poor (30%-50%), fair (50%-70%), good (70%-90%), and excellent (>90%). If an article reported a conclusion addressing its primary objective with supportive statistical evidence for it, they were deemed to have an evidence-based conclusion.

Results

A total of 65 systematic reviews were included. According to AMSTAR and PRISMA, 1.5% to 6.2% of studies were rated as excellent, while good studies counted for 21.5% to 47.7%. According to AMSTAR, most studies were of fair quality (46.2%), and 6.2% of very poor quality. Mean PRISMA score was 70.2%, meaning studies of good quality. For both tools, performing a meta-analysis significantly increased studies scores and quality. Cervical spondylosis studies reached highest scores among diseases analyzed. Authors stated conclusions for interventions compared in 70.7% of studies, and only two of them were not supported by statistical evidence.

Conclusion

Systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical degenerative diseases present “fair” to “good” quality in their majority, and most of the reported conclusions are supported by statistical evidence. Including a meta-analysis significantly increases the quality of a systematic review.

A Study on COMP and CTX-II as Molecular Markers for the Diagnosis of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Background

Diagnosis of intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is challenging at the early stage. The cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and extracellular matrix degradation products of C-telopeptide of type II collagen (CTX-II) serve as markers for the serological diagnosis of IVDD. Oxidative stress might cause IVDD and matrix degeneration.

Methods

A total of 128 male adult Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats were randomly and equally assigned to the experimental and control groups. The experimental group was used to construct IVDD models by acupuncture, while the control group underwent sham operation. The animals were executed every week for 8 weeks after intervertebral disc acupuncture, and serum samples were collected for the estimation of CTX-II and COMP concentrations by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Also, the histological changes and caudal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes were examined in the intervertebral disc.

Results

IVDD in rats worsened with prolonged follow-up after acupuncture. At all the time points, the experimental group showed altered histological and caudal vertebra MRI signals, and serum CTX-II and COMP concentrations were significantly greater than those of the control group. These levels increase with the process of IVDD.

Conclusion

Serum CTX-II and COMP estimation is a reliable method to diagnose IVDD, and their concentrations show a positive correlation with the process of IVDD.

The 22nd Anniversary of the Cochrane Back and Neck Group

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review and literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an update on The Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) activities.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back pain (LBP) affects 80% of people at some time in their lives. CBN Group has been housed in Toronto at the Institute for Work & Health since 1996 and has published 85 reviews and 32 protocols in the Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Narrative review of CBN publications, impact factor, usage data, and social media impact.

RESULTS

In the past 3 years, CBN conducted priority setting with organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines for LBP. CBN editors and associate editors published key methodological articles in the field of back and neck pain research. The methodological quality of CBN reviews has been assessed by external groups in a variety of areas, which found that CBN reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. CBN reviews have been included in 35 clinical practice guidelines for back and neck conditions. The 2018 journal impact factor of CBN is 11.154, which is higher than the 2018 impact factor for CDSR (7.755). CBN reviews ranked 4th among 53 Cochrane review groups in terms of Cochrane Library usage data. The most accessed CBN review was "Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low-back pain" which had 9689 full-text downloads. CBN is active on Twitter with 3958 followers.

CONCLUSION

CBN has published highly utilized systematic reviews and made important methodological contributions to the field of spine research over the past 22 years within Cochrane.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews of exercise therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro and CINAHL was searched up to February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that investigated exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. AMSTAR 2 assessment was performed by pairs of reviewers, and the overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews were rated as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' and 'Critically low'. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2 and the overall confidence in the results were tabulated.

RESULTS

The search identified 38 systematic reviews. Most of the reviews included a median of 10 clinical trials and total sample size of 813 participants per review. Five of 38 (13%) reviews were Cochrane reviews, and 8 (21%) systematic reviews had a protocol published or registered prospectively. The overall confidence in the results of 28 reviews (74%) was rated as 'Critically low', 6 (16%) as 'Low', 1 (2%) as Moderate, while 3 of 38 reviews (8%) were rated as 'High'.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate very low confidence in the results of most systematic reviews of exercise in chronic non-specific low back pain. Clinicians are more likely to deliver the most efficacious interventions to patients by critically appraising systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 before making their decisions.

Balloon Kyphoplasty in the Treatment of Neoplastic Spine Lesions: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of kyphoplasty in controlling pain and improving quality of life in oncologic patients with metastatic spinal disease and pathologic compression fractures of the spine.

METHODS

A literature search through medical database was conducted (using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and LILACS) for randomized controlled trials comparing balloon kyphoplasty versus the traditional treatment for compression fractures of the spine due to metastatic disease. Two investigators independently assessed all titles and abstracts to select potential articles to be included. Inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials involving patients with pathologic compression fractures due to spinal metastasis or multiple myeloma treated with balloon kyphoplasty procedure as one of the study interventions, while the control group was any other treatment modality. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Two studies, with a combined total of 181 patients, met inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, the meta-analysis was not possible, and individual analysis of studies was performed. There is moderate evidence that patients treated with balloon kyphoplasty displayed better scores for pain (Numeric Rating Scale), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality of life (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and functional status (Karnofsky Performance Status) compared with those undergoing the conventional treatment. Patients treated with kyphoplasty also have better recovery of vertebral height.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concluded that balloon kyphoplasty could be considered as an early treatment option for patients with symptomatic neoplastic spinal disease, although further randomized clinical trials should be performed for improvement of the quality of evidence.

Micro-endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic surgery for lumbar disk herniation

Objective

This study was performed to compare the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) versus micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of patients with lumbar disk herniation.

Methods

In total, 216 patients treated for lumbar disk herniation in our center from January 2016 to July 2017 were prospectively divided into two groups according to the treatment received. One group was treated with PELD and the other group was treated with MED. The surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, total hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) score before and after the surgery were compared between the groups.

Results

The surgical duration was significantly longer in the PELD than MED group. The intraoperative blood loss volume was significantly larger in the MED than PELD group. The total hospital stay was significantly longer in the MED than PELD group. The decline in the VAS pain score and increase in the ODI score after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Although PELD is associated with a longer surgical duration than MED, it should still be considered superior to MED because of less intraoperative hemorrhage and a significantly shorter hospitalization time.

Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of neuropathic pain (NeuP) are increasingly important for decision-making. However, methodological flaws in SRs can reduce the validity of conclusions. Hence, it is important to assess the methodological quality of NeuP SRs critically. Additionally, it remains unclear which assessment tool should be used. We studied the methodological quality of SRs published in the field of NeuP and compared two assessment tools.

Methods

We systematically searched 5 electronic databases to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions for NeuP available up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) tools. The scores were converted to percentiles and ranked into 4 grades to allow comparison between the two checklists. Gwet’s AC1 coefficient was used for interrater reliability assessment.

Results

The 97 included SRs had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5–8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26–35)). The overall agreement score between the 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI 0.39–0.86) for AMSTAR and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53–0.70) for R-AMSTAR. The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). The analysis of individual domains showed the best compliance in a comprehensive literature search (item 3) on both checklists. The results for the domain that was the least compliant differed: conflict of interest (item 11) was the item most poorly reported on AMSTAR vs. publication bias assessment (item 10) on R-AMSTAR. A high positive correlation between the total AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR scores for all SRs, as well as for CSRs and NCSRs, was observed.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of analyzed SRs in the field of NeuP was not optimal, and CSRs had a higher quality than NCSRs. Both AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools produced comparable quality ratings. Our results point out to weaknesses in the methodology of existing SRs on interventions for the management NeuP and call for future improvement by better adherence to analyzed quality checklists, either AMSTAR or R-AMSTAR.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0493-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

RESULTS

We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Comprehensive comparison of therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency target disc decompression and nucleoplasty for lumbar disc herniation: a five year follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency target disc decompression(TDD) and nucleoplasty for lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty patients with lumbar disc herniation were divided into two groups: target disc decompression group (group T, n = 147) and nucleoplasty group (group N, n = 113). Visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional rating index (FRI) were measured at one, three, six, 12, 24, and 60 months after the surgery. Hospitalization time, operation time, complications, and recurrence/invalid were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the pre-operation, the VAS and FRI in both groups were significantly decreased in post-operation(P < 0.01). The VAS and FRI in group T have no significant difference compared to those in group N. The hospitalization and operation time of group T were significantly longer than those in group N. There was no significant difference of the occurrence of complications and disease recurrence/invalid during the follow-up between the two groups. Logstic regression analysis showed that operation time was an independent factor in the prognosis. Operation time affects the treatment effect. Shorter operation time leads to better therapeutic efficacy, and longer operation time leads to poor therapeutic efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TDD and nucleoplasty can reduce pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation and improve quality of life. Group N had shorter hospitalization and operation time than group T.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are important for making clinical recommendations and guidelines. We analyzed methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs published in the top-ranking anesthesiology journals.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. SRs published from 2005 to 2015 in the first quartile journals within the Journal Citation Reports category Anesthesiology were analyzed based on the Journal Citation Reports impact factor for year 2014. Each SR was assessed by 2 independent authors using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tools. Total score (median and interquartile range, IQR) on checklists, temporal trends in total score, correlation in total scores between the 2 checklists, and variability of those results between journals were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 446 SRs were included. Median total score of AMSTAR was 6/11 (IQR: 4-7) and of PRISMA 18.5/27 (IQR: 15-22). High compliance (reported in over 90% SRs) was found in only 1 of 11 AMSTAR and 5 of 27 PRISMA items. Low compliance was found for the majority of AMSTAR and PRISMA individual items. Linear regression indicated that there was no improvement in the methodological and reporting quality of SRs before and after the publication of the 2 checklists (AMSTAR: F(1,8) = 0.22; P = .65, PRISMA: F(1,7) = 0.22; P = .47). Total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA had positive association (R = 0.71; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Endorsement of PRISMA in instructions for authors was not a guarantee of compliance. Methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs should be improved using relevant checklists. This can be remedied by a joint effort of authors, editors, and peer reviewers.

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: What Is the Evidence?

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to (i) assess the risk of neurological injury after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) with and without intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) and (ii) evaluate differences in the sensitivity and specificity of ION for ACSS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although ION is used to detect impending neurological injuries in deformity surgery, it's utility in ACSS remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies on ION use for ACSS. Studies that included posterior cervical surgery were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Outcome measure was postoperative neurological injury.

RESULTS

The search yielded 10 studies totaling 26,357 patients. The weighted risk of neurological injury after ACSS was 0.64% (0.23-1.25). The weighted risk of neurological injury was 0.20% (0.05-0.47) for ACDFs compared with 1.02% (0.10-2.88) for corpectomies. For ACDFs, there was no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION (odds ratio, 0.726; confidence interval, CI, 0.287-1.833; P = 0.498). The pooled sensitivities and specificities of ION for ACSS are 71% (CI: 48%-87%) and 98% (CI: 92%-100%), respectively. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION [unimodal: 99% (CI: 97%-100%), multimodal: 92% (CI: 81%-96%), P = 0.0218]. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivities between unimodal and multimodal [68% vs. 88%, respectively, P = 0.949].

CONCLUSION

The risk of neurological injury after ACSS is low although procedures involving a corpectomy may carry a higher risk. For ACDFs, there is no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION use. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION and may minimize "subclinical" intraoperative alerts in ACSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.