This story reports on the publication of results from a large trial in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluating surgery compared to non-operative care for the treatment of sciatica. This trial represented the first randomized trial of surgery for herniated disc in the US since 1983 and significantly improved our knowledge of the benefits of surgery. There are several key points from this study that are important for people with herniated disc to understand:
1. Regardless of the treatment selected, surgical or non-operative care, most people in the study got better after two years.
2. Patient preferences for treatment choices, the bothersomeness of symptoms, and whether they can afford to take some extra time to get better, should underlie the treatment decision. This means that patients need to be a part of the decision process and should not simply look to their doctor for the answer.
3. In the study, there were no negative consequences from waiting to have surgery. There were no cases of permanent nerve damage from waiting and the high rate of crossing from one treatment group to another suggests that patients can change their mind after making an initial treatment decision without worrying that they'll never get better. This means that patients shouldn't feel pressured to make a fast decision.
4. All patients need a lot more help making the decision that is right for them. Every patient in the study watched a video that provided the key facts a patient needs to make a good decision and help them weigh what matters most to them.
This story does an excellent job of describing the recent results, including the strengths and limitations of the available evidence.
By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of sciatica and herniated disc, the story does not engage in disease mongering. It is important to distinguish patients with sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc who were evaluated in this study from patients with low back pain without sciatica. One cannot generalize the results of treatment for sciatica to low back pain alone.The story describes how non-operative care can be just as effective as surgery and mentions specific non-operative options such as physical therapy and painkillers.
The story adequately describes the details of the design of the current studies and points out the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs ("Many patients didn't stay in their assigned group: Almost half those assigned to noninvasive treatment ultimately had surgery, and more than one-third of those assigned to surgery ended up choosing less invasive treatment instead."). The story provides quantification of benefits from the observational arm of the study only. The story should have provided the same numbers from the randomized arm, however the story adequately addresses the overall findings and their importance. The story also mentions that four percent of patients required another operation and that no one developed cauda equina syndrome (Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the nerve roots are compressed and paralyzed, cutting off sensation and movement. Nerve roots that control the function of the bladder and bowel are especially vulnerable to damage.)
Because the story quotes three experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Finally, the story does mention the cost of surgery (around $6,000), however the story should have provided costs of non-operative care by way of comparison.
The story mentions the cost of surgery. The story should have provided estimates of costs of non-operative care for comparison.
The story provides quantification of benefits from the observational arm of the study only. The story should have provided the same numbers from the randomized arm. However, the story adequately addresses the overall findings and their importance.
The story mentions that four percent of patients required another operation and that no one developed cauda equina syndrome. Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the nerve roots are compressed and paralyzed, cutting off sensation and movement. Nerve roots that control the function of the bladder and bowel are especially vulnerable to damage.
The story adequately describes the details of the design of the current studies and points out the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs ("Many patients didn't stay in their assigned group: Almost half those assigned to noninvasive treatment ultimately had surgery, and more than one-third of those assigned to surgery ended up choosing less invasive treatment instead.")
By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of sciatica and herniated disc, the story does not engage in disease mongering. It is important to distinguish patients with sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc who were evaluated in this study from patients with low back pain without sciatica. One cannot generalize the results of treatment for sciatica to low back pain alone.
The story quotes three experts, the principal investigator of the study and two other experts who were not directly involved in the study who wrote editorials in the same issue of JAMA.
The story describes how non-operative care can be just as effective as surgery. The story also mentions specific options like physical therapy and painkillers.
The story clearly states that surgery is common for sciatica.
The story clearly states that surgery is not a novel idea for sciatica.
Because the story quotes three experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like