Conflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: Which evidence should general practitioners heed

Kevork Hopayian, Miranda Mugford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important in informing clinical practice and commissioning. Two systematic reviews of a treatment for low back pain and sciatica using epidural steroid injections, published in the same year, arrived at conflicting conclusions. Only one was reported in a digest for evidence-based medicine. This paper aims to find the reasons for the discordance between the reviews, and draw conclusions for users of reviews. Using comparative analysis of two published systematic reviews and their source material, it was found that the two reviews had the same overall aims and met the criteria for review methods. They differed in their choice of methods, including the judgement of quality of studies for inclusion and for summing up evidence. Estimation of summary odds ratios in one review led to stronger conclusions about effectiveness, in conclusion, the choice of methods for systematic review may alter views about the current state of evidence. Users should be aware that systematic reviews include an element of judgement, whatever method is used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-60
Number of pages4
JournalBritish Journal of General Practice
Volume49
Issue number438
Publication statusPublished - 1999

Keywords

  • Epidural steroid injections
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Sciatica
  • Sytematic reviews

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Conflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: Which evidence should general practitioners heed'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this