A Comparative Study of Outcomes and Measurements Used in Randomized Controlled Trials for Low Back Pain Treated by Western Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of hypokinesia globally. Currently, the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials for LBP lacks consistency, utility, and standardization, and the results of studies in the same field cannot be combined for comparison. Thus, the homogeneity and utility of outcomes need to be enhanced. Objective To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for LBP and their outcome reports, then to analyze the variations of reported outcomes and measurements among different interventions for LBP, and to explore homogeneous and practical outcome indices for LBP. Methods Four clinical trials registry platforms (Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register, Back and Neck Review Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP) and seven databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, SinoMed, VIP) were searched for RCTs about LBP treated by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) , western medicine (WM) and integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine (TCM-WM) published during 2017 to 2021. Information was extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results In total, 1 014 RCTs of LBP with WM treatment, 624 RCTs of LBP with TCM treatment, and 392 RCTs of LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment were included. Overall, the quality of RCTs was low and the reporting of outcome in different interventions was deficient. Through our assessment, the total Jadad score was 2 (2, 4) for RCTs of LBP with WM treatment, 2 (2, 3) for RCTs of LBP with TCM treatment, and 2 (2, 2) for those of LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment, with more than 50% of the RCTs having a total Jadad score of 2, and more than 10% having a Jadad score of 3. More than 80% of the RCTs had an outcome score of 1. The number of indices reported in RCTs about WM for LBP ranged from 1 to 8 (with a median value of 2) , and the top five outcome domains reported with frequency were pain level (28.2%) , physical function (28.0%) , hospital-related outcomes (8.0%) , economic indices (8.0%) , and adverse events/effects (8.0%) , and the top three scales used to evaluate outcomes were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) /Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) , the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) , and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOA) . The number of indices reported in RCTs about TCM for LBP ranged from 1 to 6 (with a median value of 2) , and the top five outcome domains reported with frequency were pain level (45%) , physical function (27%) , others (14%) , overall quality of life (5%) , and musculoskeletal and connective tissue outcomes (2%) , and the main scales used included VAS/VRS, ODI, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) , the Numerical Rating Scale/ Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS/NPRS) , Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ/RMD) , and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey/ 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12/SF-36) . The number of indices reported in RCTs for LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment was 1-12 (with a median value of 2) , and the top five outcome domains reported with high frequency were physical function (39%) , pain level (34%) , others (9%) , overall quality of life (5%) , and musculoskeletal and connective tissue outcomes (4%) , and the scales used with high frequency were VAS/VRS, ODI, JOA, SF-12/SF-36, RMDQ, and NRS/NPRS. The evaluation dimensions of outcomes for three interventions were all mainly based on pain level and physical function, and the measurements were focused on the VAS/VRS scale (WM: 22.16%, TCM: 32.97%, integrated TCM-WM: 30.94%) and the ODI/CODI scale (WM: 15.88%, TCM: 18.74%, integrated TCM-WM: 20.07%) , and the common outcome indices with corresponding measurements were pain level (VAS/VRS) , physical function (ODI/RMD) , overall quality of life (SF-12/SF-36) and imaging results (X-ray/CT/MRI) . Conclusion By means of quality evaluation and data analysis, the result showed that all RCTs for LBP and their outcome reports had low-quality. The main outcome assessments among three interventions were pain level and physical function, and the main measurements were the VAS/VRS scale and the ODI/CODI scale. Pain level, physical function, quality of life, and imaging results were commonly reported through varied interventions. In brief, the results provide a basis for the future construction of Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Intervention-related Specific Outcome Sets (In-SOS) for LBP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,400 | 0,648 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,026 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».