A systematic review reveals that the credibility of subgroup claims in low back pain trials was low

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 79, Issue , 2016, Pages 3-9

  Saragiotto, Bruno T ^a   Maher, Chris G ^a   Moseley, Anne M ^a   Yamato, Tie P ^a   Koes, Bart W ^b   Sun, Xin ^c,d   Hancock, Mark J ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Back pain; Effect modifier; Methods; Research design; Treatment outcome; Subgroup analysis

Indexed keywords

BACKACHE; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LOW BACK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84979581534     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.003     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. [1] Global Burden of Disease Study. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386 (2014), 743–800.
2. [2] Hoy, D., March, L., Brooks, P., Blyth, F., Woolf, A., Bain, C., et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73 (2014), 968–974.
3. [3] Hoy, D., Bain, C., Williams, G., March, L., Brooks, P., Blyth, F., et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 64 (2012), 2028–2037.
4. [4] Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J.T. Jr., Shekelle, P., et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med 147 (2007), 478–491.
5. [5] van Tulder, M., Becker, A., Bekkering, T., Breen, A., del Real, M.T., Hutchinson, A., et al. Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J 15:Suppl 2 (2006), S169–S191.
6. [6] Kent, P., Keating, J., Do primary-care clinicians think that nonspecific low back pain is one condition?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29 (2004), 1022–1031.
7. [7] Kent, P., Keating, J.L., Classification in nonspecific low back pain: what methods do primary care clinicians currently use?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 (2005), 1433–1440.
8. [8] Fritz, J.M., Lindsay, W., Matheson, J.W., Brennan, G.P., Hunter, S.J., Moffit, S.D., et al. Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction? Results of a randomized clinical trial and subgrouping analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 (2007), E793–E800.
9. [9] Kamper, S.J., Maher, C.G., Hancock, M.J., Koes, B.W., Croft, P.R., Hay, E., Treatment-based subgroups of low back pain: a guide to appraisal of research studies and a summary of current evidence. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24 (2010), 181–191.
10. [10] Borkan, J.M., Koes, B., Reis, S., Cherkin, D.C., A report from the second international forum for primary care research on low back pain. Reexamining priorities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 (1998), 1992–1996.
11. [11] Guccione, A., Goldstein, M., Elliott, S., Clinical research agenda for physical therapy. Phys Ther 80 (2000), 499–513.
12. [12] Hancock, M.J., Maher, C.G., Latimer, J., Herbert, R.D., McAuley, J.H., Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 17 (2008), 936–943.
13. [13] Flynn, T., Fritz, J., Whitman, J., Wainner, R., Magel, J., Rendeiro, D., et al. A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 (2002), 2835–2843.
14. [14] Childs, J.D., Fritz, J.M., Flynn, T.W., Irrgang, J.J., Johnson, K.K., Majkowski, G.R., et al. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 141 (2004), 920–928.
15. [15] Brennan, G.P., Fritz, J.M., Hunter, S.J., Thackeray, A., Delitto, A., Erhard, R.E., Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute “nonspecific” low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:6 (2006), 623–631.
16. [16] Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J.W., You, J.J., Akl, E.A., Mejza, F., et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ, 344, 2012, e1553.
17. [17] van Klaveren, D., Vergouwe, Y., Farooq, V., Serruys, P.W., Steyerberg, E.W., Estimates of absolute treatment benefit for individual patients required careful modeling of statistical interactions. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 1366–1374.
18. [18] Hasford, J., Bramlage, P., Koch, G., Lehmacher, W., Einhaupl, K., Rothwell, P.M., Inconsistent trial assessments by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and IQWiG: standards for the performance and interpretation of subgroup analyses are needed. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 1298–1304.
19. [19] Oxman, A.D., Guyatt, G.H., A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 116 (1992), 78–84.
20. [20] Sun, X., Briel, M., Walter, S.D., Guyatt, G.H., Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ, 340, 2010, c117.
21. [21] Stanton, T.R., Hancock, M.J., Maher, C.G., Koes, B.W., Critical appraisal of clinical prediction rules that aim to optimize treatment selection for musculoskeletal conditions. Phys Ther 90 (2010), 843–854.
22. [22] Hancock, M., Herbert, R.D., Maher, C.G., A guide to interpretation of studies investigating subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther 89 (2009), 698–704.
23. [23] Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J.W., Akl, E.A., You, J.J., Mejza, F., et al. Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials. Trials, 10, 2009, 101.
24. [24] Sun, X., Ioannidis, J.P., Agoritsas, T., Alba, A.C., Guyatt, G., How to use a subgroup analysis: users’ guide to the medical literature. JAMA 311 (2014), 405–411.
25. [25] Oxman, A.D., Subgroup analyses. BMJ, 344, 2012, e2022.
26. [26] Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R.D., Moseley, A.M., Elkins, M., Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83 (2003), 713–721.
27. [27] de Morton, N.A., The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother 55 (2009), 129–133.
28. [28] Macedo, L.G., Elkins, M.R., Maher, C.G., Moseley, A.M., Herbert, R.D., Sherrington, C., There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of physiotherapy evidence database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 920–925.
29. [29] Landis, J., Koch, G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
30. [30] Mistry, D., Patel, S., Hee, S.W., Stallard, N., Underwood, M., Evaluating the quality of subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials of therapist-delivered interventions for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39 (2014), 618–629.
31. [31] Chan, A.W., Hrobjartsson, A., Jorgensen, K.J., Gotzsche, P.C., Altman, D.G., Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ, 337, 2008, a2299.
32. [32] Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J.W., You, J.J., Akl, E.A., Mejza, F., et al. The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ, 342, 2011, d1569.