• Rongzhong Huang, Zengdong Meng, Yu Cao, Jing Yu, Sanrong Wang, Chong Luo, Lehua Yu, Yu Xu, Yang Sun, and Lihong Jiang.
• Department of Gerontology, First People's Hospital of YunNan Province, YunNan 662299, China. Electronic address: rzhuang@live.com.
• Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Oct 1; 49 (2): 303-313.

BackgroundEvaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.Results58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.ConclusionNo treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…