期刊文献+

中西医治疗腰背痛临床试验结局指标及测量工具的比较研究 被引量:13

A Comparative Study of Outcomes and Measurements Used in Randomized Controlled Trials for Low Back Pain Treated by Western Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 背景腰背痛是目前全球范围内造成运动功能减退的主要原因。而腰背痛临床试验的结局指标报告缺乏一致性、实用性、规范性,同领域研究结果无法进行合并比较,亟须同质性和实用性的结局指标。目的评价腰背痛临床随机对照试验(RCT)及其结局指标报告的质量,分析、比较不同干预措施在腰背痛RCT中结局指标及测量工具的差异,探索腰背痛同质性和实用性的结局指标。方法检索Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register(CRSO)、Back and Neck Review Group Trials Register(CRS)、ClinicalTrials.gov、WHO ICTRP 4个临床研究注册平台及Cochrane Library、PubMed、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据知识服务平台(Wanfang Data)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)、维普网(VIP)数据库,获得2017—2021年中医、西医及中西医结合治疗腰背痛的RCT,筛选文献后提取文献信息并进行描述性分析。结果共纳入西医RCT 1014项,中医RCT 624项,中西医结合RCT 392项。腰背痛RCT Jadad评分总分西医2(2,4)分、中医2(2,3)分、中西医结合2(2,2)分,超过50%的研究Jadad评分总分为2分,超过10%的研究Jadad评分为3分,整体研究质量偏低。纳入研究中超过80%结局指标评分为1分,不同干预措施的结局指标报告均不完整。西医治疗腰背痛RCT报告的指标数量为1~8个(中位数M=2个),报告频率前5位的结局域为疼痛程度(28.2%)、身体功能(28.0%)、医院相关结局(8.0%)、经济学指标(8.0%)、不良事件/影响(8.0%),评价研究结局使用频率前3位的量表为视觉模拟评分量表(VAS)/口述分级量表(VRS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数问卷表(ODI)、日本骨科协会评估治疗分数(JOA);中医治疗腰背痛RCT报告的指标数量为1~6个(中位数M=2个),报告频率前5位的结局域为疼痛程度(45%)、身体功能(27%)、其他(14%)、整体生活质量(5%)、肌肉骨骼和及结缔组织结局(2%),主要使用的量表包含VAS/VRS、ODI、简化McGill疼痛问卷(SF-MPQ)、疼痛数值评定量表(NRS/NPRS)、Roland-Morris功能障碍调查表(RMDQ/RMD)、生活质量评定量表(Quality of Life,QoL)简明版(SF-12/SF-36);中西医结合治疗腰背痛RCT报告的指标数量为1~12个(中位数M=2个),其中报告频率前5的结局域为身体功能(39%)、疼痛程度(34%)、其他(9%)、整体生活质量(5%)、肌肉骨骼和结缔组织结局(4%),高频率使用的量表为VAS/VRS、ODI、JOA、SF-12/SF-36、RMDQ/RMD及NRS/NPRS。西医、中医和中西医结合3种类型治疗腰背痛RCT的干预措施结局指标评价维度均以疼痛程度与身体功能结局为主,所运用的测量工具集中在VAS/VRS量表(西医:22.16%,中医:32.97%,中西医结合:30.94%)及ODI/中文版ODI(CODI)(西医:15.88%,中医:18.74%,中西医结合:20.07%),共有的高频结局指标及其测量工具为疼痛程度(VAS/VRS)、生理功能(ODI/RMD)、生活质量(SF-12/SF-36)及影像学结果(X线/CT/MRI)。结论腰背痛RCT及其结局指标报告的质量较低,西医、中医和中西医结合3种类型治疗腰背痛RCT的干预措施结局指标评价均以疼痛程度与身体功能结局为主,主要测量工具为VAS/VRS量表和ODI/CODI量表,共有的结局指标主要包括疼痛程度(VAS/VRS)、生理功能(ODI/RMD)、生活质量(SF-12/SF-36)及影像学结果(X线/CT/MRI)。研究结果为未来构建腰背痛核心结局指标集与干预相关的特色结局指标集提供了依据。 Background Low back pain(LBP)is the leading cause of hypokinesia globally.Currently,the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials for LBP lacks consistency,utility,and standardization,and the results of studies in the same field cannot be combined for comparison.Thus,the homogeneity and utility of outcomes need to be enhanced.Objective To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)for LBP and their outcome reports,then to analyze the variations of reported outcomes and measurements among different interventions for LBP,and to explore homogeneous and practical outcome indices for LBP.Methods Four clinical trials registry platforms(Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register,Back and Neck Review Group Trials Register,ClinicalTrials.gov,WHO ICTRP)and seven databases(Cochrane Library,PubMed,Web of Science,CNKI,Wanfang Data,SinoMed,VIP)were searched for RCTs about LBP treated by traditional Chinese medicine(TCM),western medicine(WM)and integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine(TCM-WM)published during 2017 to 2021.Information was extracted and analyzed descriptively.Results In total,1014 RCTs of LBP with WM treatment,624 RCTs of LBP with TCM treatment,and 392 RCTs of LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment were included.Overall,the quality of RCTs was low and the reporting of outcome in different interventions was deficient.Through our assessment,the total Jadad score was 2(2,4)for RCTs of LBP with WM treatment,2(2,3)for RCTs of LBP with TCM treatment,and 2(2,2)for those of LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment,with more than 50%of the RCTs having a total Jadad score of 2,and more than 10%having a Jadad score of 3.More than 80%of the RCTs had an outcome score of 1.The number of indices reported in RCTs about WM for LBP ranged from 1 to 8(with a median value of 2),and the top five outcome domains reported with frequency were pain level(28.2%),physical function(28.0%),hospital-related outcomes(8.0%),economic indices(8.0%),and adverse events/effects(8.0%),and the top three scales used to evaluate outcomes were the Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)/Verbal Rating Scale(VRS),the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI),and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score(JOA).The number of indices reported in RCTs about TCM for LBP ranged from 1 to 6(with a median value of 2),and the top five outcome domains reported with frequency were pain level(45%),physical function(27%),others(14%),overall quality of life(5%),and musculoskeletal and connective tissue outcomes(2%),and the main scales used included VAS/VRS,ODI,short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ),the Numerical Rating Scale/Numeric Pain Rating Scale(NRS/NPRS),Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire(RMDQ/RMD),and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey/36-Item Short Form Health Survey(SF-12/SF-36).The number of indices reported in RCTs for LBP with integrated TCM-WM treatment was 1-12(with a median value of 2),and the top five outcome domains reported with high frequency were physical function(39%),pain level(34%),others(9%),overall quality of life(5%),and musculoskeletal and connective tissue outcomes(4%),and the scales used with high frequency were VAS/VRS,ODI,JOA,SF-12/SF-36,RMDQ,and NRS/NPRS.The evaluation dimensions of outcomes for three interventions were all mainly based on pain level and physical function,and the measurements were focused on the VAS/VRS scale(WM:22.16%,TCM:32.97%,integrated TCM-WM:30.94%)and the ODI/CODI scale(WM:15.88%,TCM:18.74%,integrated TCM-WM:20.07%),and the common outcome indices with corresponding measurements were pain level(VAS/VRS),physical function(ODI/RMD),overall quality of life(SF-12/SF-36)and imaging results(X-ray/CT/MRI).Conclusion By means of quality evaluation and data analysis,the result showed that all RCTs for LBP and their outcome reports had low-quality.The main outcome assessments among three interventions were pain level and physical function,and the main measurements were the VAS/VRS scale and the ODI/CODI scale.Pain level,physical function,quality of life,and imaging results were commonly reported through varied interventions.In brief,the results provide a basis for the future construction of Core Outcome Sets(COS)and Intervention-related Specific Outcome Sets(In-SOS)for LBP.
作者 吴忆宁 万颖 胡超越 孙亚男 于长禾 WU Yining;WAN Ying;HU Chaoyue;SUN Yanan;YU Changhe(Beijing University of Chinese Medicine,Beijing 100029,China;First School of Clinical Medicine,Beijing University of Chinese Medicine,Beijing 100029,China;TCM Department,Xuanwu Hospital,Capital Medical University,Beijing 100069,China;Tuina and Pain Management Department,Dongzhimen Hospital,Beijing University of Chinese Medicine,Beijing 100007,China)
出处 《中国全科医学》 CAS 北大核心 2022年第35期4433-4442,共10页 Chinese General Practice
基金 国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(81803956) 北京市首发青年优才项目(2020-4-4195) 首都临床特色应用研究(Z181100001718165)。
关键词 腰背痛 结局指标 临床结局评价 比较研究 中西医结合 Low black pain Outcomes Clinical outcome assessment Comparative study Integrated traditional Chinese medicine&western medicine
  • 相关文献

参考文献19

二级参考文献258

共引文献804

同被引文献171

引证文献13

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部