Cargando…

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jonas, Wayne B, Crawford, Cindy, Colloca, Luana, Kaptchuk, Ted J, Moseley, Bruce, Miller, Franklin G, Kriston, Levente, Linde, Klaus, Meissner, Karin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26656986
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009655
_version_ 1782405611693015040
author Jonas, Wayne B
Crawford, Cindy
Colloca, Luana
Kaptchuk, Ted J
Moseley, Bruce
Miller, Franklin G
Kriston, Levente
Linde, Klaus
Meissner, Karin
author_facet Jonas, Wayne B
Crawford, Cindy
Colloca, Luana
Kaptchuk, Ted J
Moseley, Bruce
Miller, Franklin G
Kriston, Levente
Linde, Klaus
Meissner, Karin
author_sort Jonas, Wayne B
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups. RESULTS: 55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I(2)=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%). CONCLUSIONS: The non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4679929
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46799292015-12-22 To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials Jonas, Wayne B Crawford, Cindy Colloca, Luana Kaptchuk, Ted J Moseley, Bruce Miller, Franklin G Kriston, Levente Linde, Klaus Meissner, Karin BMJ Open Surgery OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups. RESULTS: 55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I(2)=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%). CONCLUSIONS: The non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4679929/ /pubmed/26656986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009655 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Surgery
Jonas, Wayne B
Crawford, Cindy
Colloca, Luana
Kaptchuk, Ted J
Moseley, Bruce
Miller, Franklin G
Kriston, Levente
Linde, Klaus
Meissner, Karin
To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title_full To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title_fullStr To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title_short To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
title_sort to what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26656986
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009655
work_keys_str_mv AT jonaswayneb towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT crawfordcindy towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT collocaluana towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT kaptchuktedj towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT moseleybruce towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT millerfrankling towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT kristonlevente towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT lindeklaus towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials
AT meissnerkarin towhatextentaresurgeryandinvasiveprocedureseffectivebeyondaplaceboresponseasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisofrandomisedshamcontrolledtrials