Eligibility Criteria of Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants in randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing conservative management for cervical radiculopathy (CR), to determine if any consensus exists within the literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A 2012 systematic review identified a lack of uniformity for the eligibility criteria of participants in RCTs evaluating conservative interventions for CR. Since then, a large number of RCTs have been published, signaling the need for an updated evaluation of this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022, to identify RCTs assessing conservative management of CR. Information extracted was analyzed to determine the level of homogeneity and/or heterogeneity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria across studies. RESULTS: Seventy-six RCTs met our inclusion criteria with 68 distinct trials identified. The inclusion of arm pain with or without another symptom ( i.e. numbness, paresthesia, or weakness) was required in 69.12% of trials, 50% of trials required participants to exhibit neck symptoms, and 73.53% of studies required some form of clinical examination findings, but inconsistencies existed for the number and type of tests used. Furthermore, 41.18% of trials included imaging, with 33.82% of trials requiring magnetic resonance imaging findings. The most common exclusion criteria included were the presence of red flags and cervical myelopathy in 66.18% and 58.82% of trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is still a lack of uniformity for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of trials assessing the conservative management of CR, with some improvements noted compared with the 2012 review. Based on the current literature assessing the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms and confirmatory tests, we proposed inclusion criteria for trials assessing conservative interventions. Future research should aim to develop standardized classification criteria to improve consistency among studies.

Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were randomized controlled trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of acupuncture, prednisolone, cervical manipulation, and low-level laser therapy for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term. There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191860.