Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study.

Ishaq, I; Skinner, IW; Mehta, P; Walton, DM; Bier, J; Verhagen, AP

Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study.

Ishaq, I Skinner, IW Mehta, P

Walton, DM Bier, J Verhagen, AP

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Eur Spine J, 2023
Issue Date:: 2023-11-09

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	s00586-023-08025-4.pdf	Published version	583.56 kB		View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ishaq, I
dc.contributor.author	Skinner, IW
dc.contributor.author	Mehta, P https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-9648
dc.contributor.author	Walton, DM
dc.contributor.author	Bier, J
dc.contributor.author	Verhagen, AP
dc.date.accessioned	2023-12-13T00:30:22Z
dc.date.available	2023-10-24
dc.date.available	2023-12-13T00:30:22Z
dc.date.issued	2023-11-09
dc.identifier.citation	Eur Spine J, 2023
dc.identifier.issn	0940-6719
dc.identifier.issn	1432-0932
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173818
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis. DESIGN: A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide. METHODS: We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments. RESULTS: In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17. CONCLUSION: With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	SPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartof	Eur Spine J
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s00586-023-08025-4
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	0903 Biomedical Engineering, 1103 Clinical Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Orthopedics
dc.subject.classification	3202 Clinical sciences
dc.subject.classification	4201 Allied health and rehabilitation science
dc.title	Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.location.activity	Germany
utslib.for	0903 Biomedical Engineering
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Physiotherapy
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-12-13T00:30:20Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis. DESIGN: A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide. METHODS: We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments. RESULTS: In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17. CONCLUSION: With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173818