Brønfort, Gert

AbstractMeta‐analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta‐analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently‐introduced causally interpretable meta‐analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual‐participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta‐analysis to a specified target population using the individuals' potentially effect‐modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated‐data meta‐analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally interpretable approach gives meta‐analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

Spine intersegmental motion parameters and the resultant regional patterns may be useful for biomechanical classification of low back pain (LBP) as well as assessing the appropriate intervention strategy. Because of its availability and reasonable cost, two-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy has great potential as a diagnostic and evaluative tool. However, the technique of quantifying intervertebral motion in the lumbar spine must be validated, and the sensitivity assessed. The purpose of this investigation was to (1) compare synchronous fluoroscopic and optoelectronic measures of intervertebral rotations during dynamic flexion–extension movements in vitro and (2) assess the effect of C-arm rotation to simulate off-axis patient alignment on intervertebral kinematics measures. Six cadaveric lumbar–sacrum specimens were dissected, and active marker optoelectronic sensors were rigidly attached to the bodies of L2–S1. Fluoroscopic sequences and optoelectronic kinematic data (0.15-mm linear, 0.17–0.20 deg rotational, accuracy) were obtained simultaneously. After images were obtained in a true sagittal plane, the image receptor was rotated in 5 deg increments (posterior oblique angulations) from 5 deg to 15 deg. Quantitative motion analysis (qma) software was used to determine the intersegmental rotations from the fluoroscopic images. The mean absolute rotation differences between optoelectronic values and dynamic fluoroscopic values were less than 0.5 deg for all the motion segments at each off-axis fluoroscopic rotation and were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for any of the off-axis rotations of the fluoroscope. Small misalignments of the lumbar spine relative to the fluoroscope did not introduce measurement variation in relative segmental rotations greater than that observed when the spine and fluoroscope were perpendicular to each other, suggesting that fluoroscopic measures of relative segmental rotation during flexion–extension are likely robust, even when patient alignment is not perfect.