Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline-recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations. LITERATURE SURVEY: Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication. METHODOLOGY: The review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full-text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality. SYNTHESIS: After screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full-text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high-quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: The most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".