Priorities, publication and progress in reviewing treatment for peripheral nerve disorders

Article type
Authors
Jewitt K, Cornblath D, Gunn A, O'Connor D, Hughes R
Abstract
Background: The point prevalence of peripheral nerve disorders is about 240/100,000 population. The commonest causes are carpal tunnel syndrome which causes painful tingling of the fingers and diabetic peripheral neuropathy which may lead to foot ulcers and lower leg amputation. The topic list of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group includes 30 broad categories of peripheral nerve disorder covering hundreds of conditions, most with many different possible treatments.

Objectives: To review progress in publishing Cochrane reviews of treatments for peripheral nerve disorders

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group trials register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in April 2005 to establish the number of trials relevant to each different category of peripheral nerve disorder in the scope and the number in Cochrane reviews.

Results: The Group's trial register includes 2692 potential trial references of which 1608 primarily concern peripheral nerve disorders. 22 systematic reviews on peripheral nerve disorders have been published. The principal topics included Guillain-Barre syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome, and Bell's palsy. Some reviews reached firm conclusions such as the value of operation for carpal tunnel syndrome. Most reviews indicated a need for more research to decide important issues such as the value of corticosteroids or antiviral agents in Bell's palsy. The reviews included altogether 116 trials (132 references). The reviews excluded 172 references to possible trials. Thus 18.9% of the potential trial references have been considered for inclusion in reviews. Notable omissions include reviews of treatments for some of the most prevalent conditions, including diabetic neuropathy, painful neuropathy and leprosy. Reasons for this imbalance between prevalence and completion of reviews may include the anticipated absence of trials, the personal priorities of individual board members and areas of shared interest with other Groups.

Conclusions: More work is needed to fill the gaps. Expansion of the editorial board to include members with an interest in the areas of omission and discussion with Groups sharing the same interests may help, along with recruitment of additional review authors.