MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3180016271 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046025

Interventional treatments for chronic, axial or radicular, non-cancer, spinal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

2021· review· en· W3180016271 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoqin Wang, Grace Martin, Behnam Sadeghirad, Andrea Darzi, Rachel Couban, Iván D. Flórez, Holly N. Crandon, Elena Kum, Yaping Chang, Meisam Abdar Esfahani, Laxsanaa Sivananthan, Fatemeh Mehrabi, Neil Sengupta, Preksha Rathod, Rami Z. Morsi, D. Norman Buckley, Gordon Guyatt, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Christopher J. Standaert, Thomas Agoritsas, Jason W. Busse

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkImpactUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer painRandomized controlled trialChronic painSystematic reviewMEDLINERadicular painMeta-analysisPhysical therapyBlindingCINAHLPublication biasChiropracticAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychological interventionPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170667.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.035
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.570
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.037 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→