ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives Risk of bias is a critical issue to consider when appraising studies. Generally, the higher the risk of bias of a study, the less confidence there will be that the results are valid. Considering that low back pain is recognized to have an extremely high disease burden; exercise therapy is one of the most frequently prescribed interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and that most low back pain trials have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates; the objective of this study is to explore causal pathways between the sources of risk of bias and estimates of the treatment effect of exercise therapy interventions in CLBP trials.
Methods The 249 RCTs included in the 2021 Cochrane review publication “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” will be included. The risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB 2). Causal pathways between the exposure (risk of bias domains) and our outcomes of interest (effect sizes for pain and functional limitations) will be explored through univariable and multivariable meta-regression models. These models will be adjusted for potential confounders (sample size, trial registration, incomplete flow chart information and treatment comparisons), exploring relevant interactions within each model. Additional and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore and test the robustness of the primary analyses.
Ethics and dissemination A manuscript will be prepared and submitted for publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal upon study completion. We believe that the results of this investigation will be relevant to researchers paying more attention to the synthesis of the evidence to translate clinical implications to key stakeholders (healthcare providers and patients).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Silvia Gianola, Greta Castellini and Silvia Bargeri were supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Linea 2 Studi metodologici in ortopedia e riabilitazione; L2085.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
VERSION 2.0 – CHANGES
We removed the following part from the analyses paragraph:
“3) Exploring relevant interactions Lastly, we will investigate whether relevant interactions could exist between the covariates and the risk of bias domains. When significant interactions were found, separate results will be reported for different values of the effect modifier.”
Rationale: We decided to leave the interactions out of the multivariable model and only perform a crude and adjusted analysis to be more aligned with our hypothesis. That change was done before the start of the data analysis.
If a specific reporting checklist for meta-epidemiological studies will be not available at the time of reporting, we will follow the adaptation of the PRISMA 2009 for meta-epidemiological studies proposed by Murad et al. (doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713)
We removed the following part from the analyses paragraph: 3) Exploring relevant interactions Lastly, we will investigate whether relevant interactions could exist between the covariates and the risk of bias domains. When significant interactions were found, separate results will be reported for different values of the effect modifier. Rationale: We decided to leave the interactions out of the multivariable model and only perform a crude and adjusted analysis to be more aligned with our hypothesis. That change was done before the start of the data analysis. If a specific reporting checklist for meta-epidemiological studies will be not available at the time of reporting, we will follow the adaptation of the PRISMA 2009 for meta-epidemiological studies proposed by Murad et al. (doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713)
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
