Cargando…

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice. Reporting them in minimal important difference (MID) units could improve the interpretation of evidence in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to compare,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gianola, Silvia, Andreano, Anita, Castellini, Greta, Moja, Lorenzo, Valsecchi, Maria Grazia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5952369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29764423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0924-9
_version_ 1783323171453140992
author Gianola, Silvia
Andreano, Anita
Castellini, Greta
Moja, Lorenzo
Valsecchi, Maria Grazia
author_facet Gianola, Silvia
Andreano, Anita
Castellini, Greta
Moja, Lorenzo
Valsecchi, Maria Grazia
author_sort Gianola, Silvia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice. Reporting them in minimal important difference (MID) units could improve the interpretation of evidence in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to compare, via calculation of MID units, outcomes after multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) versus usual care for pain relief in chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: We re-analyzed the data of a published Cochrane review on MBR. To attribute a MID to each pain instrument, we first searched the literature for MIDs. The MID was imputed for instruments without an established MID. We compared outcomes after MBR versus usual care for chronic LBP in the short (< 3 months), mid (> 3 and < 12 months), and long (≥12 months) term. The results of the meta-analyses are reported in MID units and interpreted as follows: if the overall effect size was greater than 1, many patients gained clinically important benefits, if it lay between 0.5 and 1.0, an appreciable number benefited, and if it fell below 0.5 few did. RESULTS: Improvement in back pain was observed in an appreciable number of patients in the short- and medium-term after MBR: the MID was lower but still close to 1 (0.75 and 0.86 MID units, respectively). MBR probably had little or no benefit for the majority of patients in the long-term, where the MID approached 0 (0.27 MID units, confidence interval 0.07–0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses expressed in MID units may offer better insight into the clinical relevance of MBR: the intervention is highly recommended for reducing pain in the short- and medium-term but cannot be recommended for long-term pain reduction since the benefit decays rapidly. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-0924-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5952369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59523692018-05-21 Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses Gianola, Silvia Andreano, Anita Castellini, Greta Moja, Lorenzo Valsecchi, Maria Grazia Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice. Reporting them in minimal important difference (MID) units could improve the interpretation of evidence in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to compare, via calculation of MID units, outcomes after multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) versus usual care for pain relief in chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: We re-analyzed the data of a published Cochrane review on MBR. To attribute a MID to each pain instrument, we first searched the literature for MIDs. The MID was imputed for instruments without an established MID. We compared outcomes after MBR versus usual care for chronic LBP in the short (< 3 months), mid (> 3 and < 12 months), and long (≥12 months) term. The results of the meta-analyses are reported in MID units and interpreted as follows: if the overall effect size was greater than 1, many patients gained clinically important benefits, if it lay between 0.5 and 1.0, an appreciable number benefited, and if it fell below 0.5 few did. RESULTS: Improvement in back pain was observed in an appreciable number of patients in the short- and medium-term after MBR: the MID was lower but still close to 1 (0.75 and 0.86 MID units, respectively). MBR probably had little or no benefit for the majority of patients in the long-term, where the MID approached 0 (0.27 MID units, confidence interval 0.07–0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses expressed in MID units may offer better insight into the clinical relevance of MBR: the intervention is highly recommended for reducing pain in the short- and medium-term but cannot be recommended for long-term pain reduction since the benefit decays rapidly. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-0924-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5952369/ /pubmed/29764423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0924-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Gianola, Silvia
Andreano, Anita
Castellini, Greta
Moja, Lorenzo
Valsecchi, Maria Grazia
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title_full Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title_fullStr Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title_short Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
title_sort multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5952369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29764423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0924-9
work_keys_str_mv AT gianolasilvia multidisciplinarybiopsychosocialrehabilitationforchroniclowbackpaintheneedtopresentminimalimportantdifferencesunitsinmetaanalyses
AT andreanoanita multidisciplinarybiopsychosocialrehabilitationforchroniclowbackpaintheneedtopresentminimalimportantdifferencesunitsinmetaanalyses
AT castellinigreta multidisciplinarybiopsychosocialrehabilitationforchroniclowbackpaintheneedtopresentminimalimportantdifferencesunitsinmetaanalyses
AT mojalorenzo multidisciplinarybiopsychosocialrehabilitationforchroniclowbackpaintheneedtopresentminimalimportantdifferencesunitsinmetaanalyses
AT valsecchimariagrazia multidisciplinarybiopsychosocialrehabilitationforchroniclowbackpaintheneedtopresentminimalimportantdifferencesunitsinmetaanalyses