Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review.
CHRONIC PAIN
Pain Management
Spinal Cord Stimulation
analgesia
Journal
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine
ISSN: 1532-8651
Titre abrégé: Reg Anesth Pain Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9804508
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Feb 2024
21 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
22
12
2023
accepted:
09
02
2024
medline:
23
2
2024
pubmed:
23
2
2024
entrez:
22
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. CRD42023431155.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
METHODS
An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
UNASSIGNED
CRD42023431155.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38388015
pii: rapm-2023-105249
doi: 10.1136/rapm-2023-105249
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: RSD received investigator-initiated grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics.