Cargando…

Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dragioti, Elena, Dong, Huan-Ji, Larsson, Britt, Gerdle, Björn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7275251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32441660
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17795
_version_ 1783542749617717248
author Dragioti, Elena
Dong, Huan-Ji
Larsson, Britt
Gerdle, Björn
author_facet Dragioti, Elena
Dong, Huan-Ji
Larsson, Britt
Gerdle, Björn
author_sort Dragioti, Elena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements. METHODS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17795
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7275251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72752512020-06-16 Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview Dragioti, Elena Dong, Huan-Ji Larsson, Britt Gerdle, Björn JMIR Res Protoc Protocol BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements. METHODS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17795 JMIR Publications 2020-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7275251/ /pubmed/32441660 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17795 Text en ©Elena Dragioti, Huan-Ji Dong, Britt Larsson, Björn Gerdle. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 22.05.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Protocol
Dragioti, Elena
Dong, Huan-Ji
Larsson, Britt
Gerdle, Björn
Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title_full Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title_fullStr Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title_full_unstemmed Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title_short Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview
title_sort reported outcomes in published systematic reviews of interdisciplinary pain treatment: protocol for a systematic overview
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7275251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32441660
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17795
work_keys_str_mv AT dragiotielena reportedoutcomesinpublishedsystematicreviewsofinterdisciplinarypaintreatmentprotocolforasystematicoverview
AT donghuanji reportedoutcomesinpublishedsystematicreviewsofinterdisciplinarypaintreatmentprotocolforasystematicoverview
AT larssonbritt reportedoutcomesinpublishedsystematicreviewsofinterdisciplinarypaintreatmentprotocolforasystematicoverview
AT gerdlebjorn reportedoutcomesinpublishedsystematicreviewsofinterdisciplinarypaintreatmentprotocolforasystematicoverview