Cargando…

“How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of vertebral compression fractures (VCF) caused by osteoporosis was estimated at 37 billion euros in the European Union in 2010. In addition, the incidence is expected to increase by 25% in 2025. The recommendations for the therapy of VCFs (conservative treatment vers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Häckel, Sonja, Renggli, Angela A., Albers, Christoph E., Benneker, Lorin M., Deml, Moritz C., Bigdon, Sebastian F., Ahmad, Sufian S., Hoppe, Sven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34167510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04305-6
_version_ 1783711664209657856
author Häckel, Sonja
Renggli, Angela A.
Albers, Christoph E.
Benneker, Lorin M.
Deml, Moritz C.
Bigdon, Sebastian F.
Ahmad, Sufian S.
Hoppe, Sven
author_facet Häckel, Sonja
Renggli, Angela A.
Albers, Christoph E.
Benneker, Lorin M.
Deml, Moritz C.
Bigdon, Sebastian F.
Ahmad, Sufian S.
Hoppe, Sven
author_sort Häckel, Sonja
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The economic burden of vertebral compression fractures (VCF) caused by osteoporosis was estimated at 37 billion euros in the European Union in 2010. In addition, the incidence is expected to increase by 25% in 2025. The recommendations for the therapy of VCFs (conservative treatment versus cement augmentation procedures) are controversial, what could be partly explained by the lack of standardized outcomes for measuring the success of both treatments. Consensus on outcome parameters may improve the relevance of a study and for further comparisons in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to analyze outcome measures from frequently cited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about VCF treatments in order to provide guidance for future studies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of all implemented databases from 1973 to 2019 using the Web of Science database. The terms “spine” and “random” were used for the search. We included: Level I RCTs, conservative treatment or cement augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cited ≥50 times. The outcome parameters of each study were extracted and sorted according to the frequency of use. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 23 different outcome parameters were used in the nine analyzed studies. Overall, the five most frequently used outcome parameters (≥ 4 times used) were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain (n = 9), European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; n = 4) and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, n = 4). CONCLUSION: With our study, we demonstrated that a large inconsistency exists between outcome measures in highly cited Level I studies of VCF treatment. Pain (VAS), followed by HrQoL (EQ-5D) and disability and function (RMDQ), opioid use, and radiological outcome (kyphotic angle, VBH, and new VCFs) were the most commonly used outcome parameters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04305-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8223299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82232992021-06-24 “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies” Häckel, Sonja Renggli, Angela A. Albers, Christoph E. Benneker, Lorin M. Deml, Moritz C. Bigdon, Sebastian F. Ahmad, Sufian S. Hoppe, Sven BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: The economic burden of vertebral compression fractures (VCF) caused by osteoporosis was estimated at 37 billion euros in the European Union in 2010. In addition, the incidence is expected to increase by 25% in 2025. The recommendations for the therapy of VCFs (conservative treatment versus cement augmentation procedures) are controversial, what could be partly explained by the lack of standardized outcomes for measuring the success of both treatments. Consensus on outcome parameters may improve the relevance of a study and for further comparisons in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to analyze outcome measures from frequently cited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about VCF treatments in order to provide guidance for future studies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of all implemented databases from 1973 to 2019 using the Web of Science database. The terms “spine” and “random” were used for the search. We included: Level I RCTs, conservative treatment or cement augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cited ≥50 times. The outcome parameters of each study were extracted and sorted according to the frequency of use. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 23 different outcome parameters were used in the nine analyzed studies. Overall, the five most frequently used outcome parameters (≥ 4 times used) were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain (n = 9), European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; n = 4) and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, n = 4). CONCLUSION: With our study, we demonstrated that a large inconsistency exists between outcome measures in highly cited Level I studies of VCF treatment. Pain (VAS), followed by HrQoL (EQ-5D) and disability and function (RMDQ), opioid use, and radiological outcome (kyphotic angle, VBH, and new VCFs) were the most commonly used outcome parameters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04305-6. BioMed Central 2021-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8223299/ /pubmed/34167510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04305-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Häckel, Sonja
Renggli, Angela A.
Albers, Christoph E.
Benneker, Lorin M.
Deml, Moritz C.
Bigdon, Sebastian F.
Ahmad, Sufian S.
Hoppe, Sven
“How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title_full “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title_fullStr “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title_full_unstemmed “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title_short “How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”
title_sort “how to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? a systematic literature review of highly cited level-i studies”
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34167510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04305-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hackelsonja howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT renggliangelaa howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT alberschristophe howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT bennekerlorinm howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT demlmoritzc howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT bigdonsebastianf howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT ahmadsufians howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies
AT hoppesven howtomeasuretheoutcomeinthesurgicaltreatmentofvertebralcompressionfracturesasystematicliteraturereviewofhighlycitedlevelistudies