Login
Communauté Vinci
Extérieur
Si votre nom d'utilisateur ne se termine pas par @vinci.be ou @student.vinci.be, utilisez le formulaire ci-dessous pour accéder à votre compte de lecteur.
Titre : | Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis (2023) |
Auteurs : | Lianne Wood ; Nadine E. Foster ; Martyn Lewis ; Gert Bronfort ; Erik J. Groessl ; Catherine Hewitt ; Gisela C. Miyamoto ; Silje E. Reme ; Annette Bishop |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Vol. 104, n° 2, 2023) |
Article en page(s) : | 218-228 |
Note générale : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.07.012 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci Essai contrôlé randomisé ; Lombalgie ; Mesures des résultats rapportés par les patients (PROM) ; Thérapeutique ; Traitement par les exercices physiques |
Résumé : | Objective To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD. Design We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data. Setting Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics). Participants The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897). Intervention Exercise compared with no exercise. Main Outcome Measures The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs? primary outcome analyses. Results Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10). Conclusions These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes. |
Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
En ligne : | https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999322005408 |