Abstract
BackgroundThe 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsImprovement 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).ConclusionsMeta-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.
Highlights
The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice
We focused on perceived pain, the most common patient-reported outcome in low back pain rehabilitation [10], which is variously measured across studies, with some using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the numerical rating scale (NRS), or the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Body Pain Index, and others not reporting the instrument
For the studies that reported an anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) for VAS and NRS, we used the minimal important change values proposed by Ostelo et al [43] because they were expressed by a consensus expert panel and because they were consistent with the MID values retrieved in all the other studies found
Summary
The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice. Chronic LBP involves central sensitization, a neuropathic pain component, and may induce maladaptive coping strategies and depression [9] in which the effect of the pain becomes more complex, being both a health and a social problem that requires comprehensive care through a multidisciplinary health care team [5] In this context, the objective of MBR is to improve physical function and modify beliefs and attitudes by addressing psychological issues or targeting social and work-related behaviour. This metric is obtained for each study by dividing the mean differences between the intervention and the control group by the pooled standard deviation of the outcome [13] This approach has two drawbacks: first, the effect of the same magnitude will appear different if the study populations are heterogeneous [13]; second, the effect size expressed in standard deviation units is difficult for most health professionals to interpret [14]. Due to the subjective nature of the outcome variables, the cumulative estimate of the treatment effect needs to be presented as a clinically relevant measure in order to illustrate the benefit of the intervention to patients
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have