Does the incidence of reporting effect differ between CBT and OMT RCTs in relation to chronic low back pain? A review of randomised controlled trials.
Item
- Title
- Does the incidence of reporting effect differ between CBT and OMT RCTs in relation to chronic low back pain? A review of randomised controlled trials.
- Author(s)
- Richter, A
- Abstract
- Background The multi-dimensional biopsychosocial factors underlying chronic low back pain (cLBP) provides the basis for treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and osteopathic manual therapy (OMT) that address the environmental, socioeconomic, cultural, physiological and psychological factors of the condition. Although CBT and OMT are recognised treatments for cLBP there is limited evidence as to the reporting of effect between these two modalities. Objective This study was conducted to critically appraise and compare CBT and OMT based interventions regarding the reporting of statistical and inferential elements that inform effectiveness and clinical applicability of treatment. Design Structured literature review. Methods Seven databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials using two independent searches for each intervention using Boolean logic. One independent reviewer filtered results and extracted trial data. Ratios and percentage were calculated for binary yes / no reporting of referenced minimal clinical significance, sample size calculation, delta values, stated power achieved, MCID, confidence interval reporting, effect size, p-value, mean difference and clinical importance discussions. A 5-point level of justification for discussions of clinical importance was determined. Results Effect size was reported 15% in CBT and 0% in OMT trials. Minimal clinical significance was referenced in 63% CBT and 50% OMT studies. Mean difference was reported 50% in CBT and 25% in OMT. Clinical importance was discussed in 88% of CBT and 75% of OMT trials. Justification was score low across both interventions. Discussion Reporting of effect size and mean difference are reported higher in CBT trials over OMT trials. Despite the low reporting of effect, both arms discuss clinical importance at a high percentage. These results show questionable low effect reporting, but high statements of clinical importance without justification. Conclusion Despite the low reporting results for justification, the results are higher than a comparative study. Overall, the low number of studies and study limitations prevents the formulation of any definitive conclusions and extrapolations that could change clinical practice.
- presented at
- European School of Osteopathy
- Date Accepted
- 2020
- Date Submitted
- 28.10.2020 18:08:19
- Type
- osteo_thesis
- Language
- English
- Submitted by:
- 62
- Pub-Identifier
- 16687
- Inst-Identifier
- 1229
- Keywords
- Chronic low back pain, Literature Review, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Osteopathic Manual Treatment, Effect Size
- Recommended
- 0
- Item sets
- Thesis
Richter, A, “Does the incidence of reporting effect differ between CBT and OMT RCTs in relation to chronic low back pain? A review of randomised controlled trials.”, Osteopathic Research Web, accessed May 1, 2025, https://www.osteopathic-research.com/s/orw/item/168