Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Estimulación de la médula espinal para el dolor relacionado con el cáncer en adultos

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009389.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 28 febrero 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Dolor y cuidados paliativos

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Peng Lihua

    Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Municipanity, China

  • Min Su

    Correspondencia a: Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Municipanity, China

    [email protected]

  • Zhou Zejun

    Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Municipanity, China

  • Wei Ke

    Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Municipanity, China

  • Michael I Bennetta

    Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Lancaster University, Institute for Health Research, Bowland Tower East Lancaster, LA1 4YT UK.

Contributions of authors

Peng Lihua wrote the protocol draft.

Michael Bennett modified the protocol.

Peng Lihua conceived the idea for this review and gave some suggestions on the protocol.

Min Su and Wei Ke did the search and extracted the data for the full review.

Wei Ke carried out the analysis for the full review.

Peng Lihua will be responsible for conducting any update of this review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, China.

External sources

  • Cochrane Pain, Palliative & Supportive Care Review Group, UK.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

PaPaS editorial office for protocol editing.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Jun 29

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer‐related pain in adults

Review

Lihua Peng, Su Min, Zhou Zejun, Ke Wei, Michael I Bennett

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009389.pub3

2013 Feb 28

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer‐related pain in adults

Review

Peng Lihua, Min Su, Zhou Zejun, Wei Ke, Michael I Bennett

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009389.pub2

2011 Oct 05

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer‐related pain in adults

Protocol

Zhou Zejun, Peng Lihua, Wei Ke, Min Su, Michael I Bennett

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009389

Differences between protocol and review

Where randomised trial evidence is desired but unlikely to be available, eligibility criteria defines that non‐randomised trials would only be included where randomised trials are found not to be available and non‐randomised trials will be appraised with commonly used checklists for methodological quality (Reeves 2011).

We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, we did not find any such trials. After consultation with the PaPaS group editors and a group discussion, we modified our inclusion criteria to include non‐randomised controlled trials for this review.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Comparison 1 Pain Intensity after SCS implantation, Outcome 1 Pain intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Pain Intensity after SCS implantation, Outcome 1 Pain intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale.

Comparison 2 Pain intensity‐‐‐1 month after SCS versus 12 months after SCS, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Pain intensity‐‐‐1 month after SCS versus 12 months after SCS, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale.

Table 1. STROBE checklist

Structure

Item

Recommendation

Title and abstract

1

Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract; provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done
and what was found.

Introduction

Background/rationale

2

Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported.

Objectives

3

State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses.

Methods

Study design

4

Present key elements of study design early in the paper.

Setting

5

Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow‐up, and data collection.

Participants

6

Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants.

Variables

7

Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable.

Data sources/
measurement

8

For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there
is more than one group.

Bias

9

Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias.

Study size

10

Explain how the study size was arrived at.

Quantitative variables

11

Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why.

Statistical methods

12

(a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding.
(b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions.
(c) Explain how missing data were addressed.

(d) If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy.

Results

Participants

13

(a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study—e.g. numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow‐up, and
analysed.
(b) Give reasons for non‐participation at each stage.
Participants
(c) Consider use of a flow diagram.

Descriptive
data

14

(a) Give characteristics of study participants (e.g. demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders.
(b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest.

Outcome data

15

Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures.

Main results

16

If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period.

Other analyses

17

Report other analyses done—e.g. analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses.

Discussion

Key results

18

Summarise key results with reference to study objectives.

Limitations

19

Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision.
Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias.

Interpretation

20

Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence.

Generalisability

21

Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results.

Other information

Funding

22

Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. STROBE checklist
Table 2. Result of STOBE Checklist

Item No.

Meglio 1989

Shimoji 1993

Yakovlev 2010

Yakovlev 2011

1

Y

Y

Y

Y

2

N

Y

Y

Y

3

N

Y

Y

Y

4

N

N

N

N

5

N

N

Y

Y

6

N

N

N

N

7

N

N

N

N

8

N

N

N

Y

9

N

N

N

N

10

N

N

N

N

11

Y

Y

Y

Y

12

N

N

N

N

13

N

N

N

N

14

N

N

N

N

15

Y

Y

Y

Y

16

N

N

N

N

17

N

N

N

N

18

Y

Y

Y

Y

19

N

N

N

N

20

Y

Y

Y

Y

21

Y

Y

Y

Y

22

N

N

Y

Y

Y:Yes; N:No; U:Unlear

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Result of STOBE Checklist
Comparison 1. Pain Intensity after SCS implantation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale Show forest plot

2

58

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.38 [3.93, 4.83]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Pain Intensity after SCS implantation
Comparison 2. Pain intensity‐‐‐1 month after SCS versus 12 months after SCS

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Intensity‐‐‐Visual Analogue Scale Show forest plot

2

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.50, 1.32]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Pain intensity‐‐‐1 month after SCS versus 12 months after SCS