As a statistician who is interested in methods of meta-analysis, the letter by Gatchel
and Licciardone
3
prompted me to examine the article by O'Keeffe et al
10
on comparative effectiveness of conservative interventions for nonspecific chronic
spinal pain. I was discouraged to find numerous shortcomings in methods, analysis,
and reporting that undermine its validity.- O'Keeffe M.
- Purtill H.
- Kennedy N.
- Conneely M.
- Hurley J.
- O'Sullivan P.
- Dankaerts W.
- O'Sullivan K.
Comparative effectiveness of conservative interventions for nonspecific chronic spinal
pain: Physical, behavioral/psychologically informed, or combined? A systematic review
and meta-analysis.
J Pain. 2016; 17: 755-774
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The Journal of PainAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: A time for change.Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 267-270
- Meta-analysis in clinical trials.Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177-188
- Potential problems with systematic reviews and meta-analyses.J Pain. 2017; 18: 228-229
- Self-management of persistent neck pain: A randomized controlled trial of a multi-component group intervention in primary health care.Eur J Pain. 2010; 14: 630.e1-630.e11
- Self-management of persistent neck pain: Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent group intervention in primary health care.Spine. 2011; 36: 2105-2115
- Misunderstandings about Q and ‘Cochran‘s Q Test’ in meta-analysis.Stat Med. 2016; 35: 485-495
- Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices—part 2.Value Health. 2011; 14: 429-437
- The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method.BMC Med Res Meth. 2014; 14: 25
- Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: Report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 1.Value Health. 2011; 14: 417-428
- Comparative effectiveness of conservative interventions for nonspecific chronic spinal pain: Physical, behavioral/psychologically informed, or combined? A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Pain. 2016; 17: 755-774
- Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications to sparse data.Stat Med. 2010; 29: 3046-3067
Article info
Footnotes
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 by the American Pain Society
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Criticism for Following Recommended PracticeThe Journal of PainVol. 19Issue 2
- PreviewThe author David C. Hoaglin criticises the methods used in our review. Specifically, he questions using a random effects model, halving of sample sizes to avoid double counting of participants, and assessing heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. However, we were in line with the recommendations of the Cochrane Back Review Group1 in using these approaches—of which the author is either unaware, or does not acknowledge. This is compounded by the fact that the author provides no evidence-based, rigorously tested alternative for these choices (eg, using the I2 statistic).
- Full-Text
- Preview
