Musculoskeletal and pain research design and quality

Article type
Authors
Harris J1, Hegmann K2, Talmage J3, Korevaar W4, Mueller K5, Genovese E6
1Medicine, The Permanente Medical Group, San Rafael, California, United States
2Family and Community Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
3Occupational Health Center, Cookeville, Tennessee, United States
4Korevaar Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
5Occupational Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States
6IMX Medical, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Abstract
Background: Musculoskeletal and chronic pain complaints account for large numbers of health care services and a disproportionate amount of expense. However, there is substantial doubt about the effectiveness of many tests and treatments in those clinical areas. Objectives: To critically appraise the literature on testing and treatment of musculoskeletal and chronic pain problems. To provide evidence-based guidance for testing and treatment. To suggest improvements in research design and execution in these areas. Methods: Researchers posed answerable clinical questions, searched MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL and other sources, screened thousands of studies and reviews, and critically appraised selected studies using methodologies adapted from the Cochrane back group, other Cochrane approaches and USPSTF. Results: This structured appraisal of individual studies revealed considerable risk of bias. Reviewers found widespread design and execution problems such as use of subjective outcomes; small group size; lack of case/diagnostic definitions; non-standard or black box interventions; no true control groups; crossover among groups; unacceptable drop out rates; short-term follow-up only; and failure to assess harms. Known variables affecting these complaints, such as SES, education, job control and latitude, job and task satisfaction, satisfaction with care, locus of control and litigation, were seldom included as variables. Function was seldom used as an outcome. Most systematic reviews suffered from incomplete searches, nonstandard study grading, selective use of studies, and inadequate or incorrect interpretation of results. Results were often heterogeneous. Conclusions: These errors reduce the likelihood that the resulting conclusions or guideline recommendations would be consistent or reproducible. This presentation will suggest an agenda for research to produce more robust evidence to support clinical practice and patient information. Functional outcomes and relative efficiency are primary concerns.