Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis
© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ..
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.
FINDINGS: Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION: All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:49 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine - 49(2024), 4 vom: 02. Apr., Seite 272-284 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Eldabe, Sam [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Chronic pain |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 04.04.2024 Date Revised 04.04.2024 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1136/rapm-2023-104674 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM361103719 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM361103719 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240405233109.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/rapm-2023-104674 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1366.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM361103719 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37611944 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Eldabe, Sam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 04.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 04.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS | ||
| 520 | |a EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool | ||
| 520 | |a FINDINGS: Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a chronic pain | |
| 650 | 4 | |a methods | |
| 650 | 4 | |a spinal cord stimulation | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nevitt, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Copley, Sue |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maden, Michelle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Goudman, Lisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hayek, Salim |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mekhail, Nagy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moens, Maarten |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rigoard, Phillipe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Duarte, Rui |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Regional anesthesia and pain medicine |d 1998 |g 49(2024), 4 vom: 02. Apr., Seite 272-284 |w (DE-627)NLM09493827X |x 1532-8651 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:49 |g year:2024 |g number:4 |g day:02 |g month:04 |g pages:272-284 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104674 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 49 |j 2024 |e 4 |b 02 |c 04 |h 272-284 | ||