Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review
Authors' conclusion
The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain.
Study context
- Population
- Meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain (pain intensity, opioid consumption and/or physical function), published January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023Meta-analyses (MAs) appraised
- Participants
- 25 participants
- Outcome
- Methodological quality of MAs (AMSTAR-2 overall quality)
Methodological detailsmethodological quality appraisal, AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal, power analysis, Search of Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus
- Methodological quality appraisal
- AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal
- Power analysis
- Search of Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
AMSTAR-2 overall quality
"High" quality MAs
3
"Low" quality MAs
3
"Critically low" quality MAs
19
Further pooled results
| Outcome | β (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Association of publication year with AMSTAR-2 overall qualityNo association | 0.043 (−0.008 to 0.095) | P = 0.097 |
| Association of impact factor with AMSTAR-2 overall qualityHigher impact factor associated with higher quality | 0.108 (0.044–0.172) | P = 0.002 |
| Association of effect size with AMSTAR-2 overall qualityNo association | −0.168 (−0.518 to 0.183) | P = 0.320 |
Statistical power
- Adequately powered (>80%) studies
- 3
- Remaining studies underpowered (<80%)
Original publication
Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Published 21 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →