You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PEDro systematic review update
Management strategies for sciatica (PEDro synthesis)
  1. Nolwenn Poquet,
  2. Chung-Wei Christine Lin
  1. Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Nolwenn Poquet, 10 avenue Jean Zay, 45000 Orléans, France; poquet.nolwenn{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    This section features a recent systematic review that is indexed on PEDro, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (http://www.pedro.org.au). PEDro is a free, web-based database of evidence relevant to physiotherapy.

    ▸ Lewis RA, Williams NH, Sutton AJ, et al. Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses. Spine J 2015;15:1461–77.

    Background

    Sciatica is a very disabling condition defined as radicular leg pain, with or without sensory, motor or reflex deficits, radiating along the path of the sciatic nerve.1 Most of the time, it is the consequence of the nerve root irritation by an intervertebral disc herniation.2 There is no international consensus for the management of sciatica.2 Different interventions have been assessed in systematic reviews using pairwise meta-analyses, but many interventions have not been compared directly.

    Aim

    The primary aim was to perform a network meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica in adults. This review is a revised analysis of a network meta-analysis published in 2011.3

    Searches and inclusion criteria

    Twenty-eight electronic databases and trial registries, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED, were searched from inception to December 2009. Reference lists …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NP selected the systematic review and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. NP and C-WCL contributed to the interpretation of the data and revision of the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles