The 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 Group
1
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). As such these are not unique critiques of our methodology, but rather
relate to the way systematic reviews such as ours, and the Cochrane collaboration,
are done. Perspectives on what constitutes optimal methods for conducting and analyzing
research evolve of course, and the methods currently advocated may not necessarily
be considered ideal in years to come. For example, the value of a “P < .05” cutoff for statistical significance is increasingly challenged. Nevertheless,
the central point remains—the methods used were aligned with the reference standard,
and criticisms that do not offer better alternatives are of little value.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
Reference
- 2015 Updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back and neck group.Spine. 2015; 40: 1660-1673
- Myofeedback training and intensive muscular strength training to decrease pain and improve work ability among female workers on long-term sick leave with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011; 84: 335-346
- 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
- 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
- Applied relaxation in the treatment of long-lasting neck pain: a randomized controlled pilot study.J Rehabil Med. 2006; 38: 100-107
Article info
Footnotes
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 by the American Pain Society
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Problems in Meta-Analysis of Comparative Effectiveness of Conservative Interventions for Nonspecific Chronic Spinal PainThe Journal of PainVol. 19Issue 2
- PreviewAs a statistician who is interested in methods of meta-analysis, the letter by Gatchel and Licciardone3 prompted me to examine the article by O'Keeffe et al10 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.
- Full-Text
- Preview
