Evaluating the research bias of the Randomized Controlled trials of yoga treatment in chronic low back pain: A systematized literature review
Tsang, Wai (2021)
Tsang, Wai
2021
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021110419268
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021110419268
Tiivistelmä
Introduction: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and its systematic reviews are ranked highest in the hierarchy of Evidence-based Medicine (EBM), as the proponents of EBM suggest that RCTs effectively eliminate much of the bias inherent with other study designs. However, the author of this thesis argues that merely adopting the RCT design does not guarantee that research bias is minimised.
Methodology: The thesis author searched 4 databases for papers intervening chronic low back pain with the yoga treatment versus usual care measured by Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire from inception up to March 2021.
Results: The search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 100 papers, of which 3 were included in this study. All of the papers were assessed as lacking internal and external validity.
Conclusion: Merely adopting the RCT design does not guarantee that research bias is minimised. In the three included studies, the most important elements of RCTs, including randomisation, concealment of sequence allocation and blinding of research personnel and participants were failed. Therefore, the research users or the clinicians should not select research papers, at least the research papers for patients with chronic low back pain intervened by the yoga treatment versus the usual care measured by RMDQ, for clinical use solely based on the Hierarchy of Evidence. Instead, they must evaluate each piece of research paper adopting the RCT to ensure its validity.
Methodology: The thesis author searched 4 databases for papers intervening chronic low back pain with the yoga treatment versus usual care measured by Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire from inception up to March 2021.
Results: The search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 100 papers, of which 3 were included in this study. All of the papers were assessed as lacking internal and external validity.
Conclusion: Merely adopting the RCT design does not guarantee that research bias is minimised. In the three included studies, the most important elements of RCTs, including randomisation, concealment of sequence allocation and blinding of research personnel and participants were failed. Therefore, the research users or the clinicians should not select research papers, at least the research papers for patients with chronic low back pain intervened by the yoga treatment versus the usual care measured by RMDQ, for clinical use solely based on the Hierarchy of Evidence. Instead, they must evaluate each piece of research paper adopting the RCT to ensure its validity.