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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |