Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Simon Dagenais

Publications and source records attributed to Simon Dagenais.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted.

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation.

Editorial↗
PubMed2006

Side effects and adverse events related to intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for back and neck pain: A survey of practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To study the side effects and adverse events related to intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for back and neck pain. DESIGN: Practitioner postal survey. SETTING: Postal survey of practitioners of prolotherapy for back and neck pain in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of prolotherapy practitioners from 2 professional organizations were surveyed about their training and experience, use of specific treatment procedures, estimated prevalence of side effects, and adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of side effects and adverse events. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 171 practitioners (response rate, 50%). Ninety-eight percent held medical degrees, and 83% were board certified in various disciplines. Respondents had a median of 10 years of experience, during which they had treated a median of 500 patients and given a median of 2000 treatments. Side effects with the highest median estimated prevalence were pain (70%), stiffness (25%), and bruising (5%). There were 472 reports of adverse events, including 69 that required hospitalization and 5 that resulted in permanent injury secondary to nerve injury. The vast majority (80%) were related to needle injuries such as spinal headache (n = 164), pneumothorax (n=123), temporary systemic reactions (n = 73), nerve damage (n = 54), hemorrhage (n = 27), nonsevere spinal cord insult (ie, meningitis, paralysis, spinal cord injury) (n = 9), and disk injury (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Side effects related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain, such as temporary postinjection pain, stiffness, and bruising, are common and benign. Adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain are similar in nature to other widely used spinal injection procedures. Further study is needed to fully describe the adverse event profile of prolotherapy for back and neck pain.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2006

Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part I: clinical trial design and methodology.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with respect to design and methodology, and provide suggestions for further improvement in future clinical trials. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM on line in July 2005. Quality of the RCTs was assessed using a 11-item checklist modified from the revised CONSORT statement, with 2 items specific to CHM (i.e. herb preparation form and quality control of herbs). RESULTS: The search yielded 167 RCTs that were selected for assessment. All trials included statements about the interventions, objectives, primary outcome design, statistical methods, and herb preparation form. Although 163 (97.6%) trials reported inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria were only reported in 26 (15.6%) trials. Fewer than 10% of trials clearly stated the random allocation sequence generation methods, and only 2.4% mentioned allocation concealment. The vast majority (86.8%) of trials were open-label, while only 13.2% used blinding. Almost half (45.5%) administered the CHM intervention as a tea or decoction. Only one trial (0.6%) reported a sample size calculation, and a single trial (0.6%) discussed quality control of the CHM intervention. CONCLUSION: The overall methodologic quality of RCTs in CHM was poor. It is essential to improve the design of future RCTs in this clinical area. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Investigator conducting RCTs should have formal training about clinical trial design; (2) A flow chart is recommended to ensure that all essential steps of clinical trial design are included. (3) Conducting pilot studies prior to RCTs may help improve their design; (4) Registration of clinical trials and publishing their protocols prior to enrollment may reduce publication bias and solicit peer reviews of the proposed design; (5) Collaboration between CHM investigators and traditional medicine academic research centers interested in integrative medicine may lead to quality improvement of RCTs of CHM.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part II: control group design.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the types of control groups in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and to provide suggestions for improving the design of control group in future clinical studies in this therapeutic area. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted in July 2005 to identify RCTs of CHM, and 66 RCTs with CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus were obtained as the basis for further analysis. RESULTS: Of 66 RCTs with CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus, 61 (92.4%) trials had both a treatment group and a control group. Twenty-seven (40.9%) RCTs compared CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug, 24 (36.4%) compared CHM vs conventional drug, 5 (7.6%) compared CHM vs placebo, 3 (4.5%) compared CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug plus placebo, 3 (4.5%) compared CHM plus conventional drug vs other CHM, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs no treatment, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM plus placebo vs conventional drug plus placebo, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug vs placebo, and 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs conventional drug vs CHM plus conventional drug. CONCLUSION: A variety of control groups were used in RCTs of CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus, including placebo, active, and no treatment control groups. Justification for selecting particular types of control groups were not provided in the trials reviewed in this study. Different control groups may be appropriate according to the study objectives, and several factors should be considered prior to selecting control groups in future RCTs of CHM. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Investigators of CHM who design clinical trials should understand the rationale for selecting different types of control groups; (2) Control groups for RCTs should be selected according to study objectives; (3) Active control groups should select interventions for comparisons that have the strongest evidence of efficacy and prescribe them as recommended; (4) Placebo control groups should select a placebo that mimics the physical characteristics of test intervention as closely as possible and is completely inert; (5) No treatment control groups should only be used when withholding treatment is ethical and objectives outcomes will not be subject to bias due to absent blinding; (6) Crossover control groups may be appropriate in chronic and stable conditions.

Control Groups↗
PubMed2006

Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part III: quality control of Chinese herbal medicine used in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss quality control of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to provide suggestions for improving this aspect in future clinical study in this therapeutic area. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM. Quality control information reported in those RCTs was then assessed independently. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 167 RCTs of CHM for a variety of conditions. A total of 11 CHM preparations were used in those RCTs. Only one trial discussed quality control of the CHM interventions used. Issues affecting the safety and efficacy of CHM products used in RCTs were discussed including standardization of raw herbal materials, processing methods, screening for product contamination, and effects of combination products. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM was poor, reflecting the need for improvements in reporting future clinical trials in this area. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve quality control of CHM used in RCTs in future, we recommend developing and implementing guidelines such as Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) for Chinese crude drugs, and current Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) specific to CHM products. Chemical analyses of individual herbs of CHM and combination products are also recommended to provide reference standards for quality control.

Drugs, Chinese Herbal↗
PubMed2006

Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part IV: applying a revised CONSORT checklist to measure reporting quality.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and to provide suggestions for improving the reporting of future clinical studies in this therapeutic area. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM. A revised CONSORT checklist designed for CHM clinical studies was implemented. The revised CONSORT checklist contained 63 items, including the following new items added specifically for CHM: (1) "syndrome of disease" based on Chinese medicine theories; (2) rationale of CHM formula; (3) formula composition; (4) preparation form of CHM; (5) quality control of CHM. RESULTS: The overall reporting quality of the RCTs as assessed with the revised CONSORT checklist varied between 19% and 44%, with a median score of 32% (standard deviation 8%). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM evaluated with a revised CONSORT checklist was poor, reflecting the need for improvements in reporting future clinical trials in this area. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM, we recommend adopting a revised CONSORT checklist that includes items specific to CHM. We also recommend that editors of CHM journals require authors to use a structured approach to presenting their trials as a condition of publication.

Drugs, Chinese Herbal↗
PubMed2006

Critical appraisal of clinical studies in Chinese herbal medicine.

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is currently widespread and appears to be growing. As an increasing proportion of the population turns to CAM therapies, whether singly or in combination with allopathic medicine, the need for quality research in this area is reinforced. Much of this research consists of clinical studies aimed primarily at clinicians, yet challenges arising from poor methodological quality will occur when interpreting study findings and their implications. For clinicians to be effective consumers of the scientific literature, familiarization with the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) is essential. The goal of this review is to introduce clinicians to the concept of critical appraisal of clinical studies and foster critical thinking when reading research articles in order to best evaluate and incorporate study findings into their daily practice. Topics discussed in this article include: (1) fundamentals of EBM; (2) types of clinical studies; (3) hierarchy of evidence; (4) Consolidated Standard of Randomized Trials (CONSORT) statement to evaluate the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (5) methodologic quality rating scales for RCTs; and (6) issues specific to evaluating studies of Chinese herbal medicine.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2005

Supplemental care with medication-assisted manipulation versus spinal manipulation therapy alone for patients with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: To measure changes in pain and disability for chronic low-back pain patients receiving treatment with medication-assisted manipulation (MAM) and to compare these to changes in a group only receiving spinal manipulation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 68 chronic low-back pain patients. METHODS: Outcomes were measured using the 1998 Version 2.0 American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons/Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies/Council of Spine Societies Outcomes Data Collection Instruments. The primary outcome variable was change in pain and disability. All patients received an initial 4- to 6-week trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), after which 42 patients received supplemental intervention with MAM and the remaining 26 patients continued with SMT. RESULTS: Low back pain and disability measures favored the MAM group over the SMT-only group at 3 months (adjusted mean difference of 4.4 points on a 100-point scale, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2 to 11.0). This difference attenuated at 1 year (adjusted mean difference of 0.3 points, 95% CI -8.6 to 9.2). The relative odds of experiencing a 10-point improvement in pain and disability favored the MAM group at 3 months (odds ratio 4.1, 95% CI 1.3-13.6) and at 1 year (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-6.5). CONCLUSION: Medication-assisted manipulation appears to offer some patients increased improvement in low back pain and disability. Further investigation of these apparent benefits in a randomized clinical trial is warranted.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Chiropractic.

Chiropractic is now more than a century old, and it is licensed throughout the United States and Canada and recognized in more than 60 countries worldwide. Doctors of Chiropractic receive training that is focused on the treatment of NMS conditions through manual and physical procedures, such as manipulation, massage, exercise, and nutrition. Most patients present to chiropractors with low back pain, neck pain, whiplash, and headaches. Numerous studies and expert panel reviews have supported the use of chiropractic and manipulation for these complaints. Satisfaction with chiropractic care for low back pain typically is good. Chiropractic, in general, offers safe and cost-effective procedures for selected musculoskeletal problems.

Canada↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for spinal pain: a critical review of the literature.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The injection of various solutions aimed at producing a sclerosing effect has been used to treat soft tissues injuries (eg, inguinal hernia) for more than 100 years. In the 1930s, this treatment approach was applied to injured joints in an attempt to stimulate connective tissue repair. Although several studies have been published about this method of treatment for various orthopedic and spinal indications (termed prolotherapy), its use remains controversial. PURPOSE: To conduct a critical review of the literature on prolotherapy for spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Critical review of the literature. METHODS: Computerized medical literature databases (Medline, CINAHL, Mantis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to uncover all published information about the use of sclerosing injections in humans with spinal pain disorders. Search results were reviewed for relevance, and information was abstracted from full-text articles. RESULTS: Our search uncovered almost 200 reference materials in various media related to prolotherapy, including 31 clinical studies related to spinal pain. There were 26 observational cohorts and 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Indications in these studies were low back pain (22), neck pain (3), cervical headaches (3) and dorsal or thoracic pain (3). A total of 20 sclerosing solutions were used in these studies; the most common was a mixture of dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, phenol 1.25% and lidocaine 0.25%. Wide variations were found in treatment protocols, such as dose, number of treatments and use of adjunct therapies. Most cohort studies were only of moderate quality and varied greatly in the substances injected and the use of co-interventions. Most clinical studies reported positive results such as decreased pain or disability, although differences between treatment and control groups did not always reach statistical significance. Commonly reported adverse reactions to this treatment include temporary postinjection pain and stiffness. A handful of more serious adverse events were reported in the 1950s and 1960s with stronger or unknown solutions. CONCLUSION: Prolotherapy describes a variety of treatment approaches rather than a specific protocol. Results from clinical studies published to date indicate that it may be effective at reducing spinal pain. Great variation was found in the injection and treatment protocols used in these studies that preclude definite conclusions. Future research should focus on those solutions and protocols that are most commonly used in clinical practice and have been used in trials reporting effectiveness to help determine which patients, if any, are most likely to benefit from this treatment.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Acute toxicity pilot evaluation of proliferol in rats and swine.

Proliferol is an investigational new drug containing lidocaine hydrochloride 0.25%, dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, and phenol 1.0% in aqueous solution. Despite extensive previous experience with similar drug solutions administered in humans by intraligamentous injection for chronic musculoskeletal conditions for over 50 years, animal toxicity data are unavailable. A pilot study was conducted to assess acute toxic effects prior to undertaking further assessment of this drug. Test animals were four Sprague-Dawley rats and four Yucatan mini-swine. Rats received injections into lumbar paraspinal muscles, whereas swine received injections into lumbosacral ligaments in an attempt to mirror the method of administration in humans. Two doses were studied equivalent to 1x and 5x the typical human dose. Outcomes measured at 24 h and 14 days included clinical observations, clinical chemistry, hematology, urinalysis, local tolerance, and major organ histopathology. In rats and swine, results from clinical chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis were indicative of acute local inflammation. At the high dose, marked (rats) and moderate (swine) short-term above-normal levels in certain liver enzymes were noted. In rats and swine, local tolerance results were indicative of acute local inflammatory changes in the skin, subcutis, and muscle around the injection sites. In rats and swine, major organ histopathology results did not reveal lesions attributable to the drug and clinical observations were within normal limits. In swine, fibroplasia was noted in deeper muscle tissues after 14 days. Injections of Proliferol in lumbar paraspinal muscles in rats and lumbosacral ligaments in swine elicited a modest acute local inflammatory response with no other indications of local or systemic toxicity.

Animals↗