Understanding the choice of control group: A systematic review of vertebroplasty trials for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures - 20/01/23
Abstract |
Objectives |
To better understand the choice of the comparator intervention in the design of clinical trials and its impact on the meaning of results we review randomized trials on vertebroplasty.
Methods |
We conducted a systematic and narrative review of all randomized trials on vertebroplasty. Trials are categorized according to the comparator intervention (non-surgical management, placebo/sham vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty).
Results |
All trials were too small to show a difference in objective clinical outcomes, and 20 of 23 RCTs used mean pain scores to compare interventions. Most trials comparing vertebroplasty with non-surgical management concluded that vertebroplasty was superior. Trials comparing kyphoplasty with vertebroplasty showed similar results for both interventions. However, 4 of 5 trials comparing vertebroplasty with placebo surgery failed to show a significant difference between groups.
Conclusion |
The clinical results of an intervention cannot be interpreted without a comparison that involves a control group. The choice of comparator intervention can change the meaning of the trial. A large pragmatic trial, using hard clinical outcomes such as morbidity and mortality as a primary outcome measure, would be needed to assess the potential clinical benefits of vertebroplasty.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, Vertebroplasty, Systematic review, Comparator intervention, Placebo, Sham, Trial methodology
Plan
Vol 69 - N° 1
Article 101401- janvier 2023 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?