Are clinical practice guidelines for low back pain interventions of high quality and updated? A systematic review using the AGREE II instrument

A Critical Appraisal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Thoracolumbar Spine Trauma

Background and objective Thoracolumbar spine trauma (TST) is frequently associated with spinal cord injury and other soft tissue and bony injuries. The management of such injuries requires an evidence-based approach. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines for the management of TST published by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS). Methods All clinical guidelines on TST published by CNS until 2020 were assessed. Five appraisers from three international centers evaluated the quality of eligible clinical guidelines by using AGREE II. Mean AGREE II scores for each domain were determined. In higher-quality domains, the scores for individual items were analyzed. Results A total of 12 guidelines published by CNS on TST were assessed. Mean scores for all six domains were as follows: Scope and Purpose (75.2%), Stakeholder Involvement (45.4%), Rigor of Development (57.0%), Clarity of Presentation (58.7%), Applicability (16.9%), and Editorial Independence (64.1%). The mean score for the overall quality of all CNS guidelines was 52.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 52.2-53.5%]. The overall agreement among appraisers was excellent [intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each guideline ranged from 0.903 to 0.963]. Conclusions CNS guidelines for the management of TST demonstrated acceptable quality across most domains; however, the domains of Applicability and Stakeholder Involvement could be further improved in future guideline updates. The assessors concluded that all guidelines could still be recommended for clinical practice with or without modifications.

Compared to what? An analysis of comparators in trials informing the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) low back pain guideline

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in hopes of encouraging evidence-based care for LBP. However, poor quality of trials that underpin CPGs can lead to misleading recommendations for LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize the comparator used in trials included in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) LBP CPG and describe the proportion and association of suboptimal comparators with NICE recommendation.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to describe the proportion of trials included in the NICE LBP CPG that used a suboptimal comparator. If comparators used an ineffective treatment, a treatment of unknown effectiveness, or no or minimal treatment then they were considered suboptimal.

RESULTS

We included 408 trials and analyzed 580 comparators used in the trials. 30.9% of the comparators used in the trials were suboptimal. Trials testing invasive treatments (32.4%) had the highest proportion of suboptimal comparators followed by non-surgical (32.3%) and pharmacological (19.0%) treatments. Trials using suboptimal treatments were less likely to have their treatment recommended (odds ratio: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.98) for use by NICE.

CONCLUSION

There is a concerning proportion of suboptimal comparators used in LBP trials that may be misleading CPG recommendations, funding allocation decisions, and ultimately clinical practice. Efforts to increase the use of optimal comparators in LBP trials are urgently needed to better understand what treatments should be recommended.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study.

METHODS

The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods.

RESULTS

Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines on interventional management of low back pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) that include interventional management recommendations and to associate their quality with characteristics including publication year and creating organization. TYPE: Systematic Review.

LITERATURE SURVEY

LBP (subacute or chronic) CPGs in English (symptom based, governmental or professional society created, January 1990-May 2020) were found using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ortho Guidelines, CPG Infobase, ECRI, Guidelines International Network, NICE, and SIGN.

METHODOLOGY

In this third order systematic review, search results were deduplicated, title and abstract screened by two independent reviewers, and full texts reviewed by four reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Resulted CPGs were appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Tool by four appraisers each. Association of their quality with creating organization, geographical region, and year of creation was calculated.

SYNTHESIS

Seven hundred fourteen screened documents resulted in 21 final CPGs. On appraisal, average overall CPG quality was 5.2 (range 2.5-6.75). Domain 5 (applicability) had the lowest average (44%) and domain 4 (clarity of presentation) had the highest average score (82%). For overall recommendation, 16 received "yes" or "yes with modifications," six received unanimous "yes" and two unanimous "no" votes. The interrater agreement of domain scoring was excellent (0.8-1.0; p < .001). There was no association found between quality of CPG and (1) year of publication (R2  = 0.0006), (2) whether the CPG was updated or new (p = .17), and (3) region of publication (p = .37).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the 21 CPGs identified in this systematic review were of high quality, but overall quality and recommendation ratings were variable. The quality of appraised CPGs showed no association with their characteristics. Some domains such as "applicability" scored uniformly lower, revealing opportunity for improvement in future CPG development. LBP CPGs should be scrutinized before adopting their recommendations.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.

More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

Background

Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals.

Methods

For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics.

Results

Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7).

Conclusions

More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals.

Trial Registration

Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01621-w.

Systematic review of guideline-recommended medications prescribed for treatment of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.

RESULTS

316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation

BACKGROUND

Despite the emergence of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP) over the last decade, self-reported levels of disability in this population have not improved. This may be explained by the numerous implementation barriers, such as the complexity of information and sheer volumes of CPGs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence and recommendations from the most recent and high-quality CPGs on the rehabilitation management of LBP by developing an infographic summarizing the recommendations to facilitate dissemination into clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of high-quality CPGs with an emphasis on rehabilitation approaches. We searched major health-related research databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, and PEDro). We performed quality assessment via the AGREE-II instrument. Contents of the CPGs were synthesized by extracting recommendations, which were then compared to one another to identify consistencies based on an iterative evaluation process.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 5 recent high-quality CPGs. We synthesized 13 recommendations on the rehabilitation management of LBP (2 for screening procedures, 3 for assessment procedures, and 8 involving treatment approaches) and 2 underlying principles were highlighted. These results were then synthetized and illustrated in a concise infographic that serves as a conceptual roadmap that identifies the specific behavior changes (i.e., adoption of CPGs' recommendations) rehabilitation professionals should adopt in order to integrate an evidenced-based approach for the management of LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically reviewed the literature for CPGs' recommendations for the physical rehabilitation management of LBP and synthesized the information through an infographic.